Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

72,055 words·~328 min read·/register/2008/07/23/08-1463

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 142 Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company

(GE)CT58 Series Turboshaft Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain GE CT58 series turboshaft engines. This proposed AD would require recalculating the lives of certain part numbered compressor spools using a new repetitive heavy lift

(RHL)multiplying factor. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks originating from the inner faces of the locking screw holes in the compressor spool. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks due to RHL missions. Cracks could result in an uncontained rotor burst and damage to, or loss of, the helicopter and serious injuries to any person onboard. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail* : Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax* :

(202)493-2251. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from GE Aircraft Engines Customer Support Center, M/D 285, 1 Neumann Way, Evendale, OH 45215; telephone

(513)552-3272; fax

(513)552-3329; e-mail *GEAE.csc@ae.ge.com* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *christopher.j.richards@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7133; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion We have received reports of nine compressor spools, with cracks originating from the inner faces of the locking screw holes in compressor spools used in RHL missions. We have not received any reports of in-flight events occurring because of the cracking. GE, the engine manufacturer, has developed a new RHL multiplying factor for use when calculating compressor spool lives on engines used for RHL missions. The new, larger multipliers will prevent the cracks from propagating to failure by causing the spools to meet their service life limits sooner, resulting in earlier removal from the engine. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained rotor burst and damage to, or loss of, the helicopter and serious injuries to any person onboard. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 12, dated April 17, 2008, that describes procedures for calculating the compressor spool cycles using RHL mission multipliers. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD which would require recalculating the cycles on certain compressor spools using new RHL mission multipliers within 30 days after the effective date of the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 89 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Prorated life lost for the compressor spools would cost about $16,972 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $1,514,068. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD* : 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company (GE):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by September 22, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to GE CT58 series turboshaft engines with a compressor spool, part number (P/N) 5920T82G07, 6010T57G07, or 6010T57G08, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Sikorsky S-61A, S-61L, S-61N, S-61R, S-62, and Columbia 107-II helicopters. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of cracks originating from the inner faces of the locking screw holes in the compressor spool. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks due to repetitive heavy lift

(RHL)missions. Cracks could result in an uncontained rotor burst and damage to, or loss of, the helicopter and serious injuries to any person onboard. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Recalculating Compressor Spool Cycles

(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, recalculate the life of compressor spools, P/N 5920T82G07, 6010T57G07, or 6010T57G08, using an RHL mission multiplying factor of both 3.7 cycles per hour and 6.0 cycles per hour. GE Alert Service Bulletin CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 12, dated April 17, 2008, contains information on calculating life cycles for the compressor spools. Removing Compressor Spools Based on the New Recalculated Cycles

(g)Before January 1, 2010, remove the compressor spools, P/N 5920T82G07, 6010T57G07, or 6010T57G08, at the earlier of when:

(1)The compressor spool reaches its part life limit as calculated using an RHL multiplying factor of 3.7, or

(2)You can see the spool at shop visit after it has reached its part life limit using an RHL multiplying factor of 6.0.

(h)On January 1, 2010 and thereafter, remove the engine before the compressor spool exceeds its part life limit as calculated using an RHL multiplying factor of 6.0.

(i)As of January 1, 2010, don't use an RHL multiplying factor of 3.7 to calculate the life of the compressor spool. Installation Prohibition

(j)After the effective date of this AD, don't install any engine that has a compressor spool installed that meets or exceeds the life limits as calculated in paragraph (g)(1) through (g)(2) or

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(k)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(l)GE Alert Service Bulletin CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 12, dated April 17, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD.

(m)Contact Christopher J. Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *christopher.j.richards@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7133; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 17, 2008. Marc Bouthillier, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-16883 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0419; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-52-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for General Electric Company

(GE)CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 turbofan engines with high-pressure

(HP)rotor 4-step air balance piston stationary seals (4-step seals), part numbers 4923T54G01, 6019T90G03, 6037T99G01, 6037T99G02, and 6037T99G03, installed. This proposed AD would require removing the 4-step seals and incorporating an 8-step seal at the next piece-part exposure. This proposed AD results from the investigation of an airplane accident. Both engines experienced high-altitude flameouts. Rotation of the HP rotors was not maintained during descent and the engines could not be restarted. We are proposing this AD to prevent the inability to restart both engines after flameout due to excessive friction of the 4-step seal, which could result in subsequent forced landing of the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone

(513)672-8400, fax

(513)672-8422. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; *e-mail* : *kenneth.steeves@faa.gov* ; *telephone:*

(781)238-7765; *fax:*

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0419; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-52-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets. This includes, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http: //www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion In October 2004, a Bombardier CL600-2B19 Regional Jet airplane experienced high-altitude flameouts of both engines while on a ferry flight. After flameout, when the airplane was descending, sufficient airspeed was not maintained to ensure rotation of the HP rotors and they stopped rotating. During repeated unsuccessful engine restart attempts on both engines, the HP rotors did not obtain sufficient rotational speeds for the engines to restart. The airplane eventually crashed while attempting to glide to an airport, and the crew was fatally injured. When these engines experience a high-altitude flameout, the engines are immediately subjected to rapid cooling due to the extremely cold air flowing around and through them. The static seal parts cool more rapidly than the rotors, and shrink until they contact the rotating seal surfaces. If the speed of the airplane is not sufficient to maintain windmill rotation of the HP rotors, the rotors will stop rotating and could lock if sufficient friction develops between the rotating and static air balance piston seal surfaces. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability to restart the engines and the subsequent forced landing of the airplane. Investigation by GE determined that under certain conditions, the existing 4-step seals used in CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 turbofan engines can come into contact with the rotating seal surfaces and create friction. In a worse case, this friction could cause locking of the HP rotors, called “rotor lock”. GE is introducing 8-step seals for all CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 turbofan engines. The 8-step seals will reduce potential drag in the rotor system and enhance the windmilling capabilities of HP rotors. This will ultimately reduce the possibility of the HP rotor locking after a high-altitude flameout when HP rotor rotation is not maintained during descent. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require removing the 4-step seal at next piece-part exposure and incorporating an 8-step seal, either by modifying the existing 4-step seal to an 8-step seal or by replacing it with an 8-step seal. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2,722 CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that this proposed AD will not impose any additional labor or material costs as most of the seals will require replacement when they are removed from the engine during scheduled engine overhaul. For those few seals that can be reworked, we estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed seal modification, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $108,800. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD* : 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0419; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-52-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by September 22, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company

(GE)CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 turbofan engines, with high-pressure

(HP)rotor 4-step air balance piston stationary seals (4-step seals), part numbers (P/Ns) 4923T54G01, 6019T90G03, 6037T99G01, 6037T99G02, and 6037T99G03, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bombardier, Inc. airplane models CL-600-2A12, -2B16, and -2B19. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the investigation of an airplane accident. Both engines experienced high-altitude flameouts. Rotation of the HP rotors was not maintained during descent and the engines could not be restarted. We are issuing this AD to prevent the inability to restart both engines after flameout due to excessive friction of the 4-step seal, which could result in subsequent forced landing of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done.

(f)Remove the 4-step seals, P/Ns 4923T54G01, 6019T90G03, 6037T99G01, 6037T99G02, and 6037T99G03.

(g)Incorporate an 8-step seal, either by modifying the existing 4-step seal to an 8-step seal, or by replacing it with an 8-step seal.

(h)Information on modifying the seal and part number configuration charts, can be found in GE Service Bulletin

(SB)No. CF34-AL S/B 72-0238, dated July 27, 2007 (CL-600-2B19), and SB No. CF34-BJ S/B 72-0217, dated July 27, 2007 (CL-600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16). Definition

(i)For the purposes of this AD, piece-part exposure means when the 4-step seal is removed from the combustion module in accordance with the disassembly instructions in the engine manufacturer's, or other FAA-approved engine manual. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(j)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(k)Contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; *e-mail: keneth.steeves@faa.gov;* telephone:

(781)238-7765, fax:

(781)238-7199; for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 16, 2008. Marc Bouthillier, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-16884 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0479; FRL-8696-2] Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone Standard for the Southern New Jersey Portion of the Philadelphia Metropolitan Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the one-hour ozone nonattainment area in Southern New Jersey, that is, the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD area, attained the one-hour ozone standard, is not subject to the imposition of penalty fees under section 185 of the Clean Air Act and does not need to implement contingency measures. Areas that EPA classified as severe ozone nonattainment areas for the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard and did not attain the Standard by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 2005 may be subject to these penalty fees. However, since the air quality in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area attained the ozone standard as of November 15, 2005, EPA is proposing not to implement these fees. This proposed determination of attainment is not a redesignation of attainment for this area, only a fulfillment of a Clean Air Act obligation to determine if an area attains the ozone standard by its applicable attainment date. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0479, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 212-637-3901. • *Mail:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. • *Hand Delivery:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0479. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, 212-637-4249. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Are Today's Actions? II. What Is the Background for These Actions? II.a. When Were These Areas Designated and Where Are They Located? II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Have on Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Including Section 185? II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies with the One-Hour Ozone Standard? II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA to Determine Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone Standard? II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan Nonattainment Area Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2005? II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard Need To Implement the Section 185 Fee Program? IV. What Is EPA Proposing? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are Today's Actions? EPA is proposing two actions for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD one-hour ozone nonattainment area (the “Philadelphia metropolitan” nonattainment area). First, EPA is proposing to determine that this area attained the one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by its attainment date, November 15, 2005. Because EPA is proposing to find that this area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date, EPA also proposes to find that this area is not subject to the imposition of the section 185 penalty fees and does not need to implement contingency measures. In a separate proposed rule at 73 FR 22896, EPA's Region 3 office proposed to find that the Philadelphia metropolitan nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date and is not subject to the imposition of section 185 penalty fees. Since EPA region 2 retains authority for addressing comments and making findings for the New Jersey portion of the area, we are issuing this separate notice. Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA must determine whether ozone nonattainment areas attained the ozone NAAQS by their attainment date. EPA uses an area's design value, calculated from three years of complete, quality assured air monitoring data as of the attainment date. For the Philadelphia area, attainment date is 2005; therefore EPA is using the 2005 design value, which includes air quality monitoring data for the 2003 through 2005 ozone seasons. The design value used for the one-hour ozone NAAQS is the fourth highest daily one-hour ozone concentration over the three-year period. Since this value is not greater than 0.12 parts per million

(ppm)at any monitor in the nonattainment area, this area is attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS 1 . 1 EPA remains obligated under section 181(b)(2) to determine whether an area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. However, after the revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher classification for the one-hour NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain the one-hour NAAQS by the area's attainment date for the one-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).) Thus even if we make a finding that an area has failed to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, the area would not be reclassified to a higher classification. II. What Is the Background for These Actions? II.a. When Were These Areas Designated and Where Are They Located? When the CAA Amendments were enacted in 1990, each area of the country that was designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS, including the Philadelphia metropolitan area, was classified by operation of law as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. (See CAA sections 107(d)(1)(c) and 181(a).) The Philadelphia one-hour ozone nonattainment area was classified as “severe-15” with a statutory attainment date of November 15, 2005. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. Section 185(a) of the CAA states that for a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area a State must collect fees on certain stationary sources of air pollution if the area “has failed to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the applicable attainment date.” The Philadelphia area consists of the following counties: Cecil County, Maryland; Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware; Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem Counties in New Jersey; and, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania. II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Have on Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Including Section 185? In an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and classified most areas of the country under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. On April 30, 2004, EPA also issued a final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1” (Phase 1 Rule). Among other matters, this rule revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS in the Philadelphia area (as well as most other areas of the country), effective June 15, 2005. (See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996; and 70 FR 44470, August 3, 2005.) This Phase 1 Rule also set forth how anti-backsliding principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which one-hour requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements not retained were the section 185 requirements for one-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that fail to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable one-hour attainment date and the requirement to implement contingency measures for failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. (See, 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004, and 70 FR 30592, May 26, 2005.) On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the eight-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to several petitions for rehearing, the Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. With respect to the challenges to the anti-backsliding provisions of the rule, the Court vacated three provisions that would have allowed States to remove from the SIP or to not adopt three one-hour obligations once the one-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked:

(1)Nonattainment area new source review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's one-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)section 185 requirement for one-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that fail to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the one-hour attainment date; and

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the one-hour NAAQS or for failure to attain that NAAQS. The Court clarified that one-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) remain in effect and areas must continue to meet those anti-backsliding requirements. However, the three provisions noted previously, which are specified in 51.905(e), were vacated by the Court. As a result, States must continue to meet the obligations for one-hour NSR; one-hour contingency measures; and, for severe and extreme areas, the obligations related to the section 185 requirement. Currently, EPA is developing two proposed rules to address the Court's vacatur and remand with respect to these three requirements. EPA will address in this proposed rule how the one-hour obligations that currently continue to apply under EPA's anti-backsliding rule (as interpreted by the Court) apply where EPA has made a determination that the area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the One-Hour Ozone Standard? Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9 includes no discussion of specific data handling conventions, EPA's publicly articulated position and the approach long since universally adopted by the air quality management community is that the interpretation of the one-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient air quality data consistent with the stated level of the standard, which is 0.12 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that: “The level of the national one-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts per million. * * * The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations of 0.12 parts per million * * * is equal to or less than 1, as determined by appendix H to this part.” EPA has clearly communicated the data handling conventions for the one-hour ozone NAAQS in guidance documents. As early as 1979, EPA issued guidance that the level of our NAAQS dictates the number of significant figures to be used in determining whether the standard was exceeded. The stated level of the standard is taken as defining the number of significant figures to be used in comparisons with the standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005 rounds up), and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value in excess of the level of the standard. ( *See* , “Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards,” EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108, January 1979.) EPA has consistently applied the rounding convention in this 1979 guideline. For example, *see* , 68 FR 19106 at 19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 62041 at 62043, October 31, 2003; and, 69 FR 21717 at 21719, April 22, 2004. II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA To Determine Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone Standard? Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator to determine after the attainment date whether ozone nonattainment areas have attained the NAAQS. This provision states: “Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by the date.” Although section 181(b)(2)(A) states that the determination of attainment status be based on the area's “design value,” EPA interprets this provision generally to refer to EPA's methodology for determining attainment status. That is, EPA determines attainment status under the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis of the annual average number of expected exceedances of the NAAQS over the three-year period up to, and including, the attainment date. (See, 60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995 and see, also, “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 at 13506, April 16, 1992 (the “General Preamble”). EPA will determine whether an area's air quality is meeting the NAAQS for purposes of sections 181(b)(2) based upon data that has been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System

(AQS)database, (formerly known as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)). The one-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded on average more than 1 day per year averaged over any 3-year period. (See 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H to 40 CFR part 50.) To account for missing data, the procedures found in appendix H to 40 CFR part 50 are used to adjust the actual number of monitored exceedances of the standard to yield the annual number of expected exceedances (“expected exceedance days”) at an air quality monitoring site. Under EPA's policies, we determine if an area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, the average expected number of days over the standard per year (i.e., “average number of expected exceedance days”) during the applicable 3-year period. See, generally the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13506, April 16, 1992 and Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to Regional Air Office Directors; “Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” February 3, 1994. While the latter is explicitly applicable only to marginal areas, the general procedures for evaluating attainment in terms of the average number of expected exceedance days during the applicable 3-year period in this memorandum apply regardless of the initial classification of an area because all findings of attainment are made pursuant to the same CAA requirements in section 181(b)(2). As noted previously, the applicable attainment date under the one-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia metropolitan area was November 15, 2005. Under these requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas with a statutory attainment date of November 15, 2005, EPA bases its proposed determination of attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date on the average number of expected exceedance days per year for the period 2003 though 2005 to determine whether the area met its applicable attainment date under section 181 of the CAA. EPA has reviewed this data to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9, and EPA policy guidance as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the previous discussion on rounding conventions elsewhere in this document. II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan Nonattainment Area Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2005? As noted previously, the applicable attainment date for the Philadelphia metropolitan nonattainment area was November 15, 2005. EPA is evaluating attainment based on the data from 2003 through 2005. During the entire 2003 to 2005 period, state and local air pollution control agencies operated eighteen ozone monitoring stations in the Philadelphia area. One other monitor discontinued operations in 2003. 2 2 This was the monitor located at West Chester University in West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania (AQS ID# 420290050). The monitor had averaged 0.3 exceedances per year over this 3-year period from 2001 to 2003. Therefore, EPA concludes that this monitor was attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS at the time monitoring ceased at this site. Table 1 summarizes the ozone data collected at the eighteen ozone monitoring stations during the 2003 to 2005 period and included in AQS for the Philadelphia area. These data have been quality assured and are recorded in AQS. The Philadelphia area States use the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assure the data transfers and content for accuracy. EPA has used the established rounding conventions set forth in our guidance documents and regulations. Table 1.—Average Number of Ozone Expected Exceedance Days per Year by Monitors in the Philadelphia Area 2003 to 2005 Monitor information State Monitor AQS ID Number of expected exceedance days 2003 2004 2005 Average number of expected exceedance days per year 2003-05 DE Killens Pond Rd, Kent Co 100010002 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 DE Lums Pond State Park, New Castle Co 100031007 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 DE Brandywine Creek State Park, New Castle Co 100031010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DE Bellevue State Park, New Castle Co 100031013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD Fairhill, Cecil Co 240150003 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 NJ Copewood E. Davis Sts, Camden 340070003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NJ Ancora State Hospital, Camden Co 340071001 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 NJ Lincoln Ave. & Highway 55, Vineland, Cumberland Co 340110007 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 NJ Shady Lane Rest Home, Clarksboro, Gloucester Co 340150002 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 NJ Rider College, Mercer Co 340210005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA Rockview Lane, Bristol, Bucks Co 420170012 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 PA New Garden Airport—Toughkenamon, Chester Co 420290100 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 PA Front St & Norris St, Chester, Delaware Co 420450002 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 PA State Armory, Norristown, Montgomery Co 420910013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA 1501 E Lycoming Ave AMS Lab, Philadelphia 421010004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA Roxy Water Pump Sta, Philadelphia 421010014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA Grant-Ashton Roads, NE Airport, Philadelphia 421010024 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 PA Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Avenue, Philadelphia 421010136 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: EPA Air Quality System

(AQS)Database. As shown in Table 1, the average number of expected exceedance days per year is less than or equal to 1.0 at all of the sites. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the Philadelphia area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005, which was the applicable attainment date under the one-hour ozone NAAQS for this nonattainment area. II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard Need To Implement the Section 185 Fee Program? If a severe or extreme one-hour ozone nonattainment area attains by its one-hour ozone attainment date, it is not required to implement the section 185 penalty fees program. Section 185(a) of the CAA states that a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area must implement a program to impose fees on certain stationary sources of air pollution if the area “has failed to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the applicable attainment date.” Consequently, if such an area has attained the standard as of its applicable attainment date, even if it subsequently lapses into nonattainment, the area would not be required to implement the section 185 penalty fees program. In addition, because the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the area is not subject to the requirement to implement contingency measures for failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. Since the area has met its attainment deadline, even if the area subsequently lapses into nonattainment, it would not be required to implement the contingency measures for failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. IV. What Is EPA Proposing? Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year period 2003 to 2005, EPA is proposing to determine that the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia severe one-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 2005. EPA also proposes to find that this area is not subject to the imposition of the section 185 penalty fees and will not need to implement contingency measures, which were required to be implemented only if the area did not attain the one-hour standard by the attainment date. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to determine that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a proposed determination of attainment based on air quality data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-income communities. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: July 8, 2008. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E8-16836 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624; FRL-8694-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Clearfield and Indiana Counties ozone nonattainment area (Clearfield/Indiana Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete quality-assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2004-2006. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Clearfield/Indiana Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624, Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take? II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request? VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area Adequate and Approvable? VIII. Proposed Action IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take? On June 14, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the Clearfield/Indiana Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment for at least 10 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP revision. On May 23, 2008, PADEP formally submitted a revision to the June 14, 2007 submittal encompassing two changes. First, PADEP submitted a new methodology that projects future emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) from electric generating units

(EGUs)to replace the former methodology submitted on June 14, 2007. Second, PADEP separated the MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area into separate MVEBs for Clearfield County and Indiana County, to replace the MVEBs established in the June 14, 2007 submittal. The Clearfield/Indiana Area was designated a subpart 1 or a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a final rule published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), based upon its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. EPA is proposing to determine that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Clearfield/Indiana Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the next ten years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Clearfield/Indiana Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and NO X for transportation conformity purposes. II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? A. General Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO X and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Clearfield/Indiana Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a **Federal Register** notice published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area (as well as most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. *See* , 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23966 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, Part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in *South Coast* is not an impediment to redesignating the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS elsewhere in this document. The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, Clearfield/Indiana Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D. Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). *See* 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2004-2006 indicates that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has a design value of 0.077 ppm. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Clearfield/Indiana Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. The Clearfield/Indiana Area The Clearfield/Indiana Area consists of Clearfield and Indiana Counties in Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Clearfield/Indiana Area was an attainment/unclassifiable area for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment NAAQS. *See* 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested that the Clearfield/Indiana Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004-2006, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Clearfield/Indiana Area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation, providing that:

(1)EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2)EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);

(3)EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;

(4)EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and

(5)The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: • “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations”, Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; • “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; • “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; • “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; • “State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act

(CAA)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; • “Technical Support Documents

(TSDs)for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; • “State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; • Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; • “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and • “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Simultaneously, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment at least 10 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP revision. On May 23, 2008, PADEP formally submitted a SIP revision encompassing two changes. First, PADEP submitted a new methodology that projects future emissions of NO X from EGUs to replace the former methodology submitted on June 14, 2007. Second, PADEP separated the MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area into separate MVEBs for Clearfield County and Indiana County, to replace the MVEBs established in the June 14, 2007 submittal. EPA has determined that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-Hour Ozone Standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for NO X and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018. Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(MPOs)and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), in conjunction with state Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), are responsible for making timely transportation conformity determinations. The Clearfield/Indiana Area contains one MPO and one RPO. The MPO is the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission for Indiana County, and the RPO is the North Central PA Regional Planning and Development Commission for Clearfield County. Pennsylvania has established separate motor vehicle emission budgets for each MPO/RPO for their respective portion of the Clearfield/Indiana Area. EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.124(d)) allow a SIP to establish motor vehicle budgets for each MPO/RPO if a nonattainment area includes more than one MPO/RPO. These motor vehicle emissions budgets displayed in the following table reflect the changes made in the May 23, 2008 SIP revision: Table 1a.—Clearfield/Indiana Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO (Clearfield County portion of the Area), in Tons per Summer Day

(tpd)Year VOC NO X 2009 4.11 11.44 2018 2.71 5.14 Table 1b.—Clearfield/Indiana Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO (Indiana County portion of the Area), in Tons per Summer Day

(tpd)Year VOC NO X 2009 3.06 4.85 2018 1.92 2.40 VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request? EPA is proposing to determine that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's June 14, 2007 and May 23, 2008 submittals satisfy the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. A. The Clearfield/Indiana Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area attains the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50. To attain this standard, the design value, which is the three average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. In the Clearfield/Indiana Area, there are two ozone monitors, one in Clearfield County (AQS# 42-033-4000) and another in Indiana County (AQS # 42-063-004). At the time of the June 14, 2007 submittal, the Indiana County monitor, had only two years, 2005 and 2006, of quality assured data available. Since the standard requires an average concentration of three years, the air quality status of the Indiana County monitoring site could not be determined using only two years, 2005 and 2006, of ambient data. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania submitted the ozone monitoring data for the Clearfield County monitor for the years 2004-2006 (the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the redesignation request) for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. PADEP uses AQS as the permanent database to maintain its quality assured data. The fourth-highest 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are summarized in Table 2 for the monitor that has three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. Table 2.—Clearfield/Indiana Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values; Clearfield County Monitor, AQS ID 42-033-4000 Year Annual 4th high reading

(ppm)2004 0.074 2005 0.086 2006 0.072 The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.077 ppm. The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.077 ppm. The data collected at the Clearfield/Indiana Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. PADEP's request for redesignation for the Clearfield/Indiana Area indicates that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition, with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and confirmed from AQS indicates that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. The Clearfield/Indiana Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See also,* Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). *See also,* 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) includes, but are not limited to, the following: • Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing; • Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; • Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); • Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source Review

(NSR)permit programs; • Provisions for air pollution modeling; and • Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain States to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO X SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO X SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate while reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Clearfield/Indiana Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate while reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. *See,* Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). *See also* , the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO X SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO X SIP Call rules are not “an applicable requirement for purposes of section 110(l) because the NO X rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard were due prior to submission of the redesignation request. Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the CAA. 2. *Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8-Hour Standards* The Clearfield/Indiana Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas. As discussed previously, because the Clearfield/Indiana Area was designated unclassifiable/attainment under the 1-hour standard, and was never designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area requirements it would be required to meet. Thus, we find that the Court's ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour requirements for purposes of redesignation. With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA notes that the Court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon

(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and

(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied. At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Clearfield/Indiana Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). *See also,* Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (which upheld this interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The DC Circuit recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. *See, Sierra Club* v. *Whitman,* 285 F. 3d 63 (DC Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plan in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” *Id.* at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request. With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that Pennsylvania's SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the redesignation request for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. Because the Commonwealth submitted a complete redesignation request for the Clearfield/Indiana Area prior to the deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour standard, we have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply to the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the purposes of redesignation. In addition to the fact that no Part D requirements applicable under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and NSR requirements of Part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act / (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects / (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. *See, Wall* v. *EPA,* 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See also,* 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). In the case of the Clearfield/Indiana Area, EPA has also determined that before being redesignated, the Clearfield/Indiana Area need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. Additionally, Pennsylvania's preconstruction permitting program regulations in Chapter 127.200-217 of the Pennsylvania Code (approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)), apply only to ozone nonattainment area sources that are located in areas classified as marginal or worse, *i.e.* , to subpart 2 nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania's NSR regulations do not apply to sources in nonattainment areas classified as basic nonattainment under subpart 1. Consequently, sources in the Clearfield/Indiana Area are subject to Part D NSR requirements of Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k). Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 contains the preconstruction permitting program that applies to major stationary sources in nonattainment areas lacking an approved Part D NSR program. Appendix S applies during the interim period after EPA designates an area as nonattainment, but before EPA approves revisions to a SIP to implement the Part D NSR requirements for that pollutant. *See,* 70 FR 71618 (November 29, 2005). The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply to attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). *See,* Chapter 127 in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); *See,* 66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001. Therefore, after the Clearfield/Indiana Area is redesignated to attainment, sources in the Clearfield/Indiana Area will be subject to Part D NSR applicable under the permitting regulations in Chapter 127, because the Clearfield/Indiana Area is located in the OTR. All areas in the OTR, both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements include reasonably available control technology (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Clearfield/Indiana Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation. *See,* 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). In the case of Clearfield/Indiana Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1-hour Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Clearfield/Indiana Area. The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR. 3. *The Clearfield/Indiana Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of Redesignation* EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner,* 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); *Wall* v. *EPA,* 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. *See also,* 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Clearfield/Indiana Area was a 1-hour attainment/unclassifiable area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the Clearfield/Indiana Area was a 1-hour attainment/unclassifiable area, there are no previous Part D SIP submittal requirements. Also, no Part D submittal requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the area. Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled. Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation have yet become due for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, and therefore they need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation. C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Clearfield/Indiana Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Clearfield/Indiana Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 3. Table 3.—Total VOC and NO X Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Summer Day

(tpd)Year Point Area Mobile Nonroad Total Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)Year 2002 1.2 9.5 10.8 3.6 25.1 Year 2004 1.2 9.2 9.4 3.4 23.2 Diff. (02-04) 0.0 −0.3 −1.4 −0.2 −1.9 Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Year 2002 144.2 1.0 25.1 4.5 174.8 Year 2004 129.3 1.0 22.2 4.2 156.7 Diff. (02-04) −14.9 0.0 −2.9 −0.3 −18.1 Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 1.9 tpd, and NO X emissions were reduced by 18.1 tpd. These reductions and anticipated future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of being implemented in the Clearfield/Indiana Area: 1. Stationary Point Sources NO X SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001). 2. Stationary Area Sources Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003). Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004). 3. Highway Vehicle Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) —Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). —Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)(64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999). Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005). 4. Nonroad Sources Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the Clearfield/Indiana Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. D. The Clearfield/Indiana Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area for at least 10 years after redesignation. Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Clearfield/Indiana Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory;

(2)A maintenance demonstration;

(3)A monitoring network;

(4)Verification of continued attainment; and

(5)A contingency plan. Analysis of the Clearfield/Indiana Area Maintenance Plan *(a) Attainment Inventory* —An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. An attainment inventory year of 2004 was used for the Clearfield/Indiana Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2004-2006 and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NO X during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NO X emissions inventories for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, including point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for a base-year of 2002. To develop the NO X and VOC base-year emissions inventories, PADEP used the following approaches and sources of data:

(i)*Point source emissions* —Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval

(FIRE)Data System and EPA's publication series AP-42 and are based on Source Classification Code (SCC). Each process has at least one SCC assigned to it. If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates supersede those calculated using SCC codes.

(ii)*Area source emissions* —Area source emissions are generally estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or collective activity for each area source category at the county level. Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary point sources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and AP-42 factors. Throughput estimates are derived from county-level activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers. County employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to the industry covered.

(iii)*On-road mobile sources* —PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions. The Clearfield/Indiana Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicle miles traveled

(VMT)by vehicle type and roadway type.

(iv)*Mobile nonroad emissions* —The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in Clearfield and Indiana counties. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small aircraft operation statistics from *www.airnav.com* , and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). The 2004 attainment year VOC and NO X emissions for the Clearfield/Indiana Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5, which show the demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that Pennsylvania has adequately derived and documented the 2004 attainment year VOC and NO X emissions for this area. *(b) Maintenance Demonstration* —On June 14, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Clearfield/Indiana Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Clearfield/Indiana Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. *See, Wall* v. *EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also* , 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32. Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NO X emissions for the Clearfield/Indiana Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. Table 5 reflects the new methodology used to project future emissions of NO X from EGUs, submitted on May 23, 2008. PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NO X emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period. Table 4.—Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (Tons per summer day) Source Category 2004 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 1.2 1.3 1.5 Stationary Area Sources 9.2 8.4 8.6 Highway Vehicles 9.4 7.2 4.7 Nonroad Engines/Vehicles 3.4 2.8 2.3 Total 23.2 19.7 17.1 Table 5.—Total NO X Emissions 2004-2018 (Tons per summer day) Source Category 2004 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 129.3 89.2 79.1 Stationary Area Sources 1.0 1.1 1.1 Highway Vehicles 22.2 16.3 7.6 Nonroad Engines/Vehicles 4.2 3.5 2.4 Total 156.7 110.1 90.2 The following programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: 1. Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004) 2. Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004) 3. Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance

(AIM)Coatings (69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004) 4. NO X SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) 5. Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) 6. FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier 2 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991 and 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) 7. NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564, December 28, 1999)—proposed amendments to move the implementation to model year

(MY)2008 8. Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road

(2006)(66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001) 9. Vehicles Safety Inspection Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005) 10. Non-road emissions standards

(2008)and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Clearfield/Indiana Area. *(c) Monitoring Network* —There are currently two monitors measuring ozone in the Clearfield/Indiana Area. Pennsylvania will continue to operate its current air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. *(d) Verification of Continued Attainment* —The Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, VMT data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, Subpart A) to see if the area exceeds the attainment year inventory

(2004)by more than 10 percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. *(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures* —The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). The ability of the Clearfield/Indiana Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NO X emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO X emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the Clearfield/Indiana Area monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures. Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Clearfield/Indiana Area monitors. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Clearfield/Indiana Area will include, but not be limited to the following: *Non-regulatory measures:* —Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash”—installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy duty diesel engines. —Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets. —Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives. —Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freight-handling facilities. —Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment. —Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use. *Regulatory measures:* —Additional controls on consumer products —Additional controls on portable fuel containers The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures within 12-24 months of the trigger. VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area Adequate and Approvable? A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e., Reasonable Further Progress SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. A MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area are listed in Table 1 for 2009 and 2018. Table 1 presents the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations. B. What Is a Safety Margin? A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety margin: the Clearfield/Indiana Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 for the Clearfield/Indiana Area equaled 23.2 tpd of VOC and 156.7 tpd of NO X . The PADEP projected total emissions out to the year 2018 of 17.1 tpd of VOC and 90.2 tpd of NO X from all sources in the Clearfield/Indiana Area. The safety margin for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts, or 6.1 tpd of VOC and 66.5 tpd of NO X . The emissions up to the level of the attainment year, including the safety margins, are projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years. Table 6.—Safety Margins for Clearfield/Indiana Area Tons per Summer Day

(tpd)(2009 & 2018) Inventory year VOC emissions

(tpd)NO X emissions

(tpd)2004 Attainment 23.2 156.7 2009 Interim 19.7 110.1 2009 Safety Margin 3.5 46.6 2004 Attainment 23.2 156.7 2018 Final 17.1 90.2 2018 Safety Margin 6.1 66.5 North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO MVEB (Clearfield County) The PADEP allocated 0.24 tpd of VOC and 0.33 tpd of NO X of the 2009 safety margin to the interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions and the 2009 interim NO X projected on-road mobile source emissions to arrive at the 2009 MVEB to be allocated to the Clearfield County portion of the Area covered by the North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO. The PADEP also allocated 0.34 tpd of VOC and 0.38 tpd of NO X of the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs to be allocated to the Clearfield County portion of the Area covered by the North Central PA Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO. Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO MVEB (Indiana County) The PADEP allocated 0.24 tpd of VOC and 0.36 tpd of NO X of the 2009 safety margin to the interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions and the 2009 interim NO X projected on-road mobile source emissions to arrive at the 2009 MVEB to be allocated to the Indiana County portion of the Area covered by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO. The PADEP also allocated 0.34 tpd of VOC and 0.41 tpd of NO X of the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs to be allocated to the Indiana County portion of the Area covered by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO. Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source category. Tables 7 and 8 show the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, including the portion of the each total MVEB that has been allocated to the Clearfield County portion of the Area (served by the North Central PA Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO) and for the Indiana County portion of the Area (served by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO) and reflect the changes made in the May 23, 2008 SIP revision: Table 7.—Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Clearfield County Portion of the Clearfield/Indiana Area (2009 & 2018)* North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO Inventory year VOC Emissions

(tpd)NO X Emissions

(tpd)2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions 3.87 11.11 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.24 0.33 2009 MVEBs 4.11 11.44 2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions 2.37 4.76 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.34 0.38 2018 MVEBs 2.71 5.14 * PADEP calculates MVEBs using kilograms per summer day, and converts the values to tons per summer day for informational purposes. This may appear to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is merely the result of the rounded tpd values. Table 8.—Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Indiana County Portion of the Clearfield/Indiana Area (2009 & 2018) * Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO Inventory year VOC Emissions

(tpd)NO X Emissions

(tpd)2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions 2.82 4.49 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.24 0.36 2009 MVEBs 3.06 4.85 2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions 1.58 1.99 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.34 0.41 2018 MVEBs 1.92 2.40 * PADEP calculates MVEBs using kilograms per summer day, and converts the values to tons per summer day for informational purposes. This may appear to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is merely the result of the rounded tpd values. C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area are approvable because the MVEBs for NO X and VOC, including the allocated safety margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations. D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Clearfield/Indiana Area Maintenance Plan? The MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are approved in a final **Federal Register** notice, or EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period. If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed approval of the Clearfield/Indiana Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Clearfield/Indiana Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: *http: //www.epa.gov.otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm* (once there, click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions”). VIII. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to determine that the Clearfield/Indiana Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, submitted on June 14, 2007. EPA is also proposing to approve the May 23, 2008 submittal that replaces the former methodology for projecting future emissions of NO X from EGUs, as well as the MVEBs submitted on June 14, 2007. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, submitted by PADEP on June 14, 2007 and a supplemental submittal on May 23, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Clearfield/Indiana Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements and because this action does not impose any new requirements on sources, this proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: July 9, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-16639 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Parts 5 and 51c RIN 0906-AA44 Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule; status. SUMMARY: The Health Resources and Services Administration

(HRSA)received many substantive comments on the proposed rule and will consider these comments carefully. Based on a preliminary review of the comments, it appears that HRSA will need to make a number of changes in the proposed rule. Instead of issuing a final regulation as the next step, HHS will issue a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for further review and public comment prior to issuing a final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Jordan, 301-594-0197. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 29, 2008, HHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas” (73 FR 11232). The initial notice provided a 60-day comment period. Due to the level of interest in the proposed rule, two 30-day extensions of the comment period were published in the **Federal Register** , one on April 21, 2008 (73 FR 21300) and the second on June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31418). The latest comment period closed on June 30, 2008. Dated: July 17, 2008. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16831 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7792] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map

(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7792, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.;* Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Walton County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Bay Branch At the confluence with Bruce Creek None +106 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County, City of Defuniak Springs. Approximately 900 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 331 None +125 Black Creek At County Highway 3280 None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. Approximately 1,570 feet upstream of County Highway 3280 None +7 Bruce Creek Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of the confluence with Mill Creek None +72 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County, City of Defuniak Springs. Approximately 6,700 feet upstream of the confluence with Bay Branch None +114 Camp Creek Approximately 5,400 feet upstream of the confluence with Black Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. At the confluence with Black Creek None +7 Gum Creek At the confluence with the Shoal River None +150 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. Approximately 12,700 feet upstream of the confluence with the Shoal River None +156 Lafayette Creek At State Highway 20 None +10 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County, City of Freeport. Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of J.W. Hollington Road None +58 Mill Creek At the confluence with Bruce Creek None +73 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. Approximately 75 feet upstream of Edgewood Circle None +146 Mill Creek Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with Mill Creek None +124 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Edgewood Circle None +175 Pate Branch At the confluence with Camp Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. Approximately 3,900 feet upstream of the confluence with Camp Creek None +7 Shoal River At the Okaloosa/Walton County boundary None +111 Unincorporated Areas of Walton County. At the confluence with Gum Creek None +150 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Defuniak Springs Maps are available for inspection at Defuniak Springs City Hall, 71 U.S. Highway 90 West, Defuniak Springs, FL. City of Freeport Maps are available for inspection at Town of Freeport Planning and Zoning Department, 112 Highway 20 West, Freeport, FL. Unincorporated Areas of Walton County Maps are available for inspection at Walton County Planning and Development Department, South Walton County Courthouse Annex, 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach, FL. Catoosa County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Hurricane Creek Approximately 660 feet downstream of Cherokee Valley Road None +824 Unincorporated Areas of Catoosa County. At confluence of Johnson Branch None +825 Johnson Branch At confluence with Hurricane Creek None +825 Unincorporated Areas of Catoosa County. Approximately 840 feet upstream of confluence with Hurricane Creek None +827 Tributary No. 1 to Black Branch Approximately 600 feet upstream of Elaine Circle None +715 City of Fort Oglethorpe. Approximately 750 feet upstream of Elaine Circle None +716 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Fort Oglethorpe Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 500 City Hall Drive, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30747. Unincorporated Areas of Catoosa County Maps are available for inspection at 800 Lafayette Street, Ringgold, GA 30736. Delaware County, Iowa, and Incorporated Areas Maquoketa River Approximately 750 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 20 None +919 Unincorporated Areas of Delaware County. Approximately 525 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 20 None +920 Approximately 0.89 mile upstream of West Main Street None +935 Approximately 1.55 miles upstream of West Main Street None +936 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Delaware County Maps are available for inspection at 301 East Main Street, Manchester, IA 52057. Gates County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Acorn Hill Millpond Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +20 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Acorn Hill Millpond Tributary 1 None +32 Beaverdam Creek Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of confluence of Beaverdam Creek Tributary 1 None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Saunders Road (State Road 1208) None +44 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 500 feet downstream of Saunders Road (State Road 1208) None +24 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +34 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +31 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence of Beaverdam Creek None +38 Bennetts Creek Approximately 3.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County, Town of Gatesville. At the confluence of Harrell Swamp and Raynor Swamp +26 +19 Bennetts Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 1A None +12 Bennetts Creek Tributary 10 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Gatlin Road (State Road 1407) None +37 Bennetts Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 1 None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 1A1 None +16 Bennetts Creek Tributary 1A1 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 1A None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 60 feet downstream of Horace Carter Road (State Road 1106) None +11 Bennetts Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +12 Bennetts Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +36 Bennetts Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +24 Bennetts Creek Tributary 4A At the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 4 None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 180 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +31 Bennetts Creek Tributary 4B At the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 4 None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 4 None +15 Bennetts Creek Tributary 5 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Silver Spring Road (State Road 1404) None +31 Bennetts Creek Tributary 5A At the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 5 None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Bennetts Creek Tributary 5 None +30 Bennetts Creek Tributary 6 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +13 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 75 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +33 Bennetts Creek Tributary 7 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Silver Spring Road (State Road 1404) None +20 Bennetts Creek Tributary 8 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 650 feet downstream of Silver Spring Road (Sate Road 1404) None +21 Bennetts Creek Tributary 9 At the confluence with Bennetts Creek None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Gatlin Road (State Road 1407) None +23 Blackwater River At the confluence with Chowan River None +13 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Chowan River None +13 Buckland Mill Branch At the confluence with Cole Creek And Hackley Swamp None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Gates Bank Road (State Road 1302) None +39 Buckland Mill Branch Tributary 1 At the confluence with Buckland Mill Branch None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Willeytown Road (State Road 1304) None +31 Buckland Mill Branch Tributary 2 At the confluence with Buckland Mill Branch None +29 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Buckland Mill Branch None +40 Chowan River Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Chowan River Tributary 1 None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County, Town of Gatesville. At the confluence of Blackwater River and Nottoway River None +13 Cole Creek At the confluence with Sarem Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. At the confluence of Buckland Mill Branch and Hackley Swamp None +23 Cole Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Turner Road (State Road 1114) None +25 Cole Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 780 feet upstream of U.S. Highway Business 158 None +30 Cole Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +9 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Cole Creek None +17 Cole Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Cole Creek None +16 Cole Creek Tributary 5 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 550 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +33 Cole Creek Tributary 6 At the confluence with Cole Creek None +18 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 375 feet downstream of Cotton Gin Road (State Road 1315) None +24 Corapeake Swamp Approximately 500 feet downstream of Daniels Road (State Road 1332) None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. At the confluence of Corapeake Swamp Tributary 1 None +33 Corapeake Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Corapeake Swamp None +33 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Corapeake Swamp None +35 Cypress Swamp Just upstream of NC Highway 137 None +16 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC Highway 137 None +16 Duke Swamp At the confluence with Harrell Swamp +26 +21 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Duke Swamp Tributary 5 None +47 Duke Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Duke Swamp None +33 Duke Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 240 feet downstream of NC Highway 32 None +37 Duke Swamp Tributary 3 At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +25 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Duke Swamp None +28 Duke Swamp Tributary 4 At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +27 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Union Branch Road (State Road 1305) None +31 Duke Swamp Tributary 5 At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +37 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Drum Hill Road (State Road 1308) None +49 Ellis Swamp At the confluence with Jady Branch None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Corner High Road (State Road 1126) None +22 Ellis Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Ellis Swamp None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Ellis Swamp None +24 Flat Branch At the confluence with Hackley Swamp None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 13 None +34 Folly Swamp Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of NC Highway 32 None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Folly Swamp Tributary 1 None +38 Folly Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Folly Swamp None +31 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of Maryland Lane None +38 Goodman Swamp At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +31 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence of Goodman Swamp Tributary 2 None +47 Goodman Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Goodman Swamp None +34 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Union Branch Road (State Road 1305) None +41 Goodman Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Goodman Swamp None +36 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Union Branch Road (State Road 1305) None +48 Goose Creek Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of Folly Road (State Road 1002) None +25 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence of Goose Creek Tributary 1 None +36 Goose Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Goose Creek None +33 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Goose Creek None +40 Gum Branch Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Jady Branch None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Taylor Mill Road (State Road 1118) None +24 Hackley Swamp At the confluence with Cole Creek and Buckland Mill Branch None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Gates School Road (State Road 1202) None +39 Hackley Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Hackley Swamp None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Sarem Road (State Road 1219) None +33 Harrell Swamp At the confluence with Bennetts Creek and Raynor Swamp +26 +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence of Duke Swamp +26 +25 Jady Branch Just upstream of NC Highway 137 None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Hill Lane Road (State Road 1122) None +24 Jernigan Branch At the confluence with Somerton Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 3.1 miles upstream of Gatlington Road (State Road 1302) None +31 Licking Branch At the confluence with Jady Branch None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Hill Lane Road (State Road 1122) None +26 Middle Swamp At the confluence with Duke Swamp None +27 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Black Mingle Road (State Road 1312) None +32 Mill Branch At the confluence with Buckland Mill Branch None +35 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Paige Riddick Road (State Road 1330) None +47 Mill Swamp Approximately 2.0 miles downstream of U.S. Highway 13 None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Drum Hill Road (State Road 1308) None +48 Mill Swamp Tributary 1 At the North Carolina/Virginia boundary None +25 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of North Carolina/Virginia boundary None +39 Mill Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Mill Swamp None +40 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Mill Swamp Tributary 2A None +49 Mill Swamp Tributary 2A At the confluence with Mill Swamp Tributary 2 None +40 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Paige Riddick Road (State Road 1330) None +42 Mill Swamp Tributary 3 At the confluence with Mill Swamp None +41 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 950 feet upstream of Mallory Buck Road (State Road 1309) None +52 Perquimans River Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of the Gates/Perquimans County boundary None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 390 feet upstream of the Gates/Perquimans County boundary None +11 Raynor Swamp At the confluence with Bennetts Creek and Harrell Swamp +26 +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Raynor Swamp Tributary 6 None +39 Raynor Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Silver Spring Lane (State Road 1404) None +36 Raynor Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 865 feet upstream of St. Paul Road (State Road 1338) None +35 Raynor Swamp Tributary 2A At the confluence with Raynor Swamp Tributary 2 None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Raynor Swamp Tributary 2 None +38 Raynor Swamp Tributary 3 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +27 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Sugar Run Road (State Road 1429) None +36 Raynor Swamp Tributary 4 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +31 Raynor Swamp Tributary 5 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +31 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,360 feet upstream of Kees Cross Road (State Road 1427) None +35 Raynor Swamp Tributary 6 At the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +37 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Raynor Swamp None +41 Sarem Creek At the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. At the confluence with Jady Branch None +10 Somerton Creek At the confluence with Chowan River None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the confluence of Jernigan Branch None +12 Taylor Mill Pond At the confluence with Jady Branch None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Hill Lane Road (State Road 1122) None +22 Taylor Swamp At the confluence with Corapeake Swamp None +29 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1,130 feet upstream of Brinkley Road (State Road 1307) None +39 Taylor Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Taylor Swamp None +30 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Taylor Swamp None +34 Trotman Creek Approximately 350 feet downstream of Carters Road (State Road 1100) None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Hobbsville Road (State Road 1414) None +33 Trotman Creek Tributary At the confluence with Trotman Creek None +10 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream from the confluence with Trotman Creek None +13 Walton Pond At the confluence with Trotman Creek None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Gates County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of NC Highway 37 None +22 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Gatesville Maps are available for inspection at Gatesville Town Hall, 127 Main Street, Gatesville, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Gates County Maps are available for inspection at Gates County Building Inspection Office, 105 New Ferry Road, Gatesville, NC. Transylvania County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Horsepasture River Approximately 200 feet downstream of the Jackson/Transylvania County boundary None +2968 Unincorporated Areas of Transylvania County. At the Jackson/Transylvania County boundary None +2989 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Transylvania County Maps are available for inspection at Transylvania County Inspections Department, 98 East Morgan Street, Brevard, NC. Oconee County, South Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Barton Creek At the confluence with Tugaloo River None +670 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,540 feet upstream of Barton Creek Road None +708 Beaverdam Creek At Oconee/Pickens County boundary None +672 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of State Highway 59 None +808 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +677 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +700 Cane Creek Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Cane Creek None +804 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County, Town of Walhalla, Town of West Union. Approximately 2,460 feet upstream of Rocky Knoll Road None +966 Choestoea Creek At the confluence with Tugaloo River None +666 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 4,370 feet upstream of the confluence with Choestoea Creek Tributary 9 None +744 Cleveland Creek At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +676 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Feltman Road None +740 Colonels Fork Creek At the confluence with Conecross Creek None +772 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,670 feet upstream of Bennett Road None +813 Conecross Creek Approximately 2.2 miles downstream of Tokeena Road None +678 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County, City of Seneca. Approximately 2,630 feet upstream of Conecross Farm Road None +708 Conecross Tributary 1 Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of the Oconee/Anderson County boundary None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3.4 miles upstream of the Oconee/Anderson County boundary None +708 Conecross Tributary 2 At the confluence with Conecross Creek None +784 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County, Town of Walhalla. Approximately 2,420 feet upstream of Bear Swamp Road None +833 Conecross Tributary 3 At the confluence with Conecross Creek None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 850 feet upstream of State Highway 11 None +780 Cornhouse Creek Approximately 1,610 feet downstream of Stamp Creek Road None +813 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 2,195 feet upstream of Stamp Creek Road None +819 Fair Play Creek At the confluence with Tugaloo River None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3,200 feet downstream of Rock Creek Road None +665 Fall Creek Approximately 1,830 feet downstream of Cliffs South Parkway None +795 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 935 feet downstream of Cliffs Cart Path Drive None +858 Hartwell Lake Tributary 1 Approximately 360 feet downstream of Martin Creek Road None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,850 feet upstream of Martin Creek Road None +672 Hartwell Lake Tributary 2 At the confluence with Hartwell Lake None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 140 feet downstream of Sunshine Road None +827 Hartwell Lake Tributary 3 At the confluence with Hartwell Lake None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 185 feet upstream of Rays Road None +859 Keowee River 2 Tributary 7 Approximately 1,295 feet downstream of Maple Avenue None +810 City of Seneca. Approximately 2,090 feet upstream of Maple Avenue None +877 Keowee River 2 Tributary 7, Tributary 1 At the confluence with Lake Keowee None +800 City of Seneca. Approximately 2,310 feet upstream of Seneca Drive None +827 Keowee River 2 Tributary 7, Tributary 1 At the confluence with Lake Keowee None +800 City of Seneca. Tributary 1 Approximately 65 feet upstream of North Pine Square None +870 Keowee River 2 Tributary 7, Tributary 1 At the confluence with Lake Keowee None +800 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Tributary 2 Approximately 1.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Lake Keowee None +824 Little Beaverdam Creek At the Oconee/Pickens County boundary None +692 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 260 feet upstream of Donald Road None +771 Little Beaverdam Creek Tributary 1 At the Oconee/Pickens County boundary None +695 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3,550 feet upstream of the Oconee/Pickens County boundary None +708 Little Cane Creek Approximately 5,000 feet downstream of Pickens Highway None +805 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,240 feet upstream of Pickens Highway None +902 Little Choestoea Creek Approximately 1 mile dowstream of Little Choestoea Road None +670 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,570 feet downstream of Mount Pleasant Road None +706 Martin Creek Approximately 4,920 feet downstream of the confluence with Martin Creek Tributary 3 None +666 City of Seneca, Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 2,560 feet upstream of South 6th Square None +891 Martin Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Martin Creek None +822 City of Seneca, Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 140 feet upstream of South 6th Square None +906 Martin Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Martin Creek None +717 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1,125 feet upstream of Owens Road None +875 Martin Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Martin Creek None +715 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 2,690 feet upstream of Martin Creek Tributary 6 None +832 Martin Creek Tributary 6 At the confluence with Martin Creek Tributary 3 None +740 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 2,320 feet upstream of Blue Sky Boulevard None +864 McKinneys Creek At the confluence with Keowee River None +800 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1.9 mile upstream from the confluence of Keowee River None +809 Mud Creek At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +695 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Cedar Lane Road None +846 Mud Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence of Mud Creek None +695 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 630 feet upstream of Cody Road None +728 Perkins Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence of Perkins Creek Tributary None +833 City of Seneca, Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Tributary 1 Approximately 1,715 feet upstream of Rolling Hills Drive None +889 Perkins Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence of Perkins Creek Tributary 1 None +786 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County, City of Seneca. Tributary 2 Approximately 2,130 feet upstream of Dalton Road None +847 Perkins Creek Tributary 1, Tributary 2 At the confluence with Perkins Creek Tributary 1, Tributary 2 None +812 City of Seneca. Tributary 1 Just downstream of W. South 6th Square None +897 Perkins Creek Tributary 1, Tributary 3 At the confluence of Perkins Creek Tributary 1 None +801 City of Seneca, Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Emaerald Road None +878 Richland Creek At the confluence of Conecross Creek None +758 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3,400 feet upstream of Bountyland Road None +824 Seneca Creek Just upstream of Davis Creek Road None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County, City of Seneca. Approximately 3,100 feet upstream of Meadowbrook Drive None +878 Seneca Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence of Seneca Creek None +667 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence of Seneca Creek None +745 Shiloh Branch Approximately 980 feet upstream of Seneca Creek Road None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Seneca Creek Road None +687 Snow Creek Approximately 690 feet downstream of Sitton Shoals Road None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Snow Creek Road None +789 Speeds Creek At the confluence of Lake Hartwell None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3,630 feet upstream of Wells Highway None +831 Tugaloo River Approximately 2.4 miles downstream of Interstate 85 None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County. Approximately 3,550 feet upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek None +896 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Seneca Maps are available for inspection at Seneca City Administrator, 221 East North First Street, Seneca, SC 29679. Town of Walhalla Maps are available for inspection at City of Walhalla City Administrator, 206 North Church Street, Walhalla, SC 29679. Town of West Union Maps are available for inspection at 1442 West Main Street, West Union, SC 29696. Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County Maps are available for inspection at Oconee County County Administrator, 415 South Pine Street, Walhalla, SC 29691. Madison County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Cane Creek At Hicks Avenue +356 +355 City of Jackson, Unincorporated Areas of Madison County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Riverside Drive +437 +434 Dyer Creek Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Middle Fork of Forked Deer River +357 +356 City of Jackson, Unincorporated Areas of Madison County. Just downstream of North Royal Street +444 +441 Middle Fork of Forked Deer River Approximately 2,160 feet upstream of the confluence of Moize Creek None +351 City of Three Way. Approximately 650 feet downstream of U.S. Route 45 None +356 Turkey Creek Approximately 3,070 feet above the confluence of Middle Fork of Forked Deer River None +356 City of Three Way. Approximately 3,470 feet upstream of Mason Road None +367 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at Planning Department, 111 East Main Street, Suite 201, Jackson, TN 38301. City of Three Way Maps are available for inspection at Office of the Mayor, 136 Green Road, Three Way, TN 38343. Unincorporated Areas of Madison County Maps are available for inspection at Madison County Commissioner's Office Building, 100 East Main Street, Jackson, TN 38301. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 14, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-16811 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7795] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map

(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7795, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement* . This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review* . This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Existing Modified Unincorporated Areas of Siskiyou County, California California Unincorporated Areas of Siskiyou County Panther Creek (shallow flooding) Approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the intersection of Squaw Valley Road and Highway 89. Flood extends west towards Modoc Avenue None # 2 California Unincorporated Areas of Siskiyou County Panther Creek Overflow (shallow flooding) Immediately south of and adjacent to Highway 89, starting near the intersection of Squaw Valley Road and Highway 89. Flooding encompasses portions of both sides of Squaw Valley Road for a southerly distance of approximately 3,000 feet None # 2 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Siskiyou County Maps are available for inspection at the Siskiyou County Public Works Department, 305 Butte Street, Yreka, CA. Ashland County, Ohio Ohio Ashland County Lang Creek Approximately 200 feet upstream of eastern corporate limit of the City of Ashland None +983 At Orange Street None +990 Ohio Ashland County Town Run Approximately 410 feet downstream of Brookside Golf Course Drive None +1126 At Brookside Golf Course Drive None +1144 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Ashland County Maps are available for inspection at 110 Cottage Street, Ashland, OH 44805. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Alameda County, California, and Incorporated Areas Castro Valley Creek (Line I) Approximately 800 feet downstream of North 4th Street +124 +125 Unincorporated Areas of Alameda County, City of Hayward. Upstream side of Pine Street +167 +168 Castro Valley Creek (Line J) At the confluence with Castrol Valley Creek +165 +164 Unincorporated Areas of Alameda County. Approximately 70 feet upstream of Seaview Avenue None +332 Chabot Creek (Line G) Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Grove Way None +110 Unincorporated Areas of Alameda County, City of Hayward. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Wisteria Street +173 +172 Shallow Flooding Between Pine Street and Castro Valley Boulevard +168 +169 Unincorporated Areas of Alameda County. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Hayward Maps are available for inspection at City of Hayward Engineering and Transportation Division, 777 B Street, Hayward, CA. Unincorporated Areas of Alameda County Maps are available for inspection at Alameda County Public Works Agency, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA. Buncombe County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Beaverdam Creek (into French Broad River) Tributary 1 Approximately 900 feet upstream of Hillcrest Road None +2107 Town of Woodfin, Unincorporated Areas of Buncombe County. Approximately 340 feet upstream of Baird Cove Road (State Road 2088) None +2348 Sweeten Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Sweeten Creek +2082 +2078 Unincorporated Areas of Buncombe County, City of Asheville. Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of West Chapel Road +2150 +2139 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Asheville Maps are available for inspection at Asheville City Hall, 70 Court Plaza, Asheville, NC. Town of Woodfin Maps are available for inspection at Woodfin Town Hall, 90 Elk Mountain Road, Woodfin, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Buncombe County Maps are available for inspection at Buncombe County Planning Department, 46 Valley Street, Asheville, NC. Surry County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Ararat River At the confluence with Yadkin River None +803 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Riverside Drive (State Road 104) None +1194 Ararat River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Ararat River None +810 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +870 Ararat River Tributary 2 At the confluence with Ararat River None +813 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of John Scott Road (State Road 2079) None +842 Ararat River Tributary 3 At the confluence with Ararat River None +818 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Reeves Road (State Road 2083) None +856 Ararat River Tributary 4 At the confluence with Ararat River None +818 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Pilot Church Road (State Road 2057) None +913 Ararat River Tributary 5 At the confluence with Ararat River None +825 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +900 Ararat River Tributary 6 At the confluence with Ararat River None +841 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 20 feet upstream of Nichols Road (State Road 2105) None +872 Ararat River Tributary 6A At the confluence with Ararat River Tributary 6 None +862 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 530 feet upstream of the confluence with Ararat River Tributary 6 None +869 Ararat River Tributary 7 At the confluence with Ararat River None +867 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +884 Ararat River Tributary 8 At the downstream side of Riverside Drive +1036 +1037 City of Mount Airy. Approximately 130 feet downstream of Springs Road None +1135 Ararat River Tributary 9 At the confluence with Ararat River +1088 +1089 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +1135 Bear Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +886 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Fisher River None +940 Beaver Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +955 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Simpson Mill Road (State Road 2200) None +1046 Beaverdam Creek At the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1078 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Hatchers Creek None +1130 Benson Creek At the upstream side of Sparger Road None +1068 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Sparger Road None +1109 Brendle Branch At the confluence with Camp Creek None +944 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile of Interstate 77 None +1000 Brushy Fork Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Pauls Creek +1119 +1118 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of White Pines Country Club Road (State Road 1627) None +1175 Brushy Fork Tributary 1 At the confluence with Brushy Fork None +1130 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Brushy Fork None +1171 Bull Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +875 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Ararat Road (State Road 2019) None +1024 Butler Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1248 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 210 feet upstream of Luffman Road None +1279 Caddle Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +940 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Siloam Road (State Road 1003) None +1018 Camp Branch At the confluence with Fisher River None +1251 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of West Pine Street None +1274 Camp Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +914 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Elkin. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of I-77 Highway None +978 Candiff Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +811 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,690 feet upstream of the confluence with Candiff Creek Tributary 2 None +894 Candiff Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Candiff Creek None +811 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,260 feet upstream of River Siloam Road (State Road 2230) None +857 Candiff Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Candiff Creek None +875 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Candiff Creek None +923 Champ Creek Approximately 450 feet upstream of Slate Road None +1040 City of Mount Airy. Approximately 700 feet upstream of McBride Road None +1065 Chinquapin Creek At the confluence with Toms Creek None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Old Westfield Road (State Road 1809) None +982 Cody Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +904 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of NC 268 Highway None +1021 Cooks Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +1025 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of White Buffalo Road (State Road 1353) None +1084 Davenport Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +850 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Fisher River None +898 Dunagan Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +873 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Buck Fork Road (State Road 2233) None +901 Dutchmans Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +896 Town of Elkin. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Yadkin River None +898 East Double Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +822 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Rome Snow Road (State Road 2229) None +941 East Double Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with East Double Creek None +874 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with East Double Creek None +939 Elkin Creek Approximately 50 feet upstream of Dam +902 +901 Town of Elkin. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of CC Camp Road None +945 Faulkner Creek Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +1007 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Quaker Road (State Road 1742) None +1194 Faulkner Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Faulkner Creek None +1035 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Faulkner Creek None +1059 Fisher River At the confluence with Yadkin River None +847 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Dobson. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Lumber Plant Road (State Road 1600) None +2009 Fisher River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Fisher River None +915 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Rockford Road None +974 Fisher River Tributary 1A At the confluence with Fisher River Tributary 1 None +940 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Fisher River Tributary 1 None +1098 Fisher River Tributary 2 At the confluence with Fisher River None +964 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,420 feet downstream of Turkey Ford Church Road None +1028 Fisher River Tributary 3 At the confluence with Fisher River None +978 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Fisher River None +1010 Fisher River Tributary 4 At the confluence with Fisher River None +1026 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Fisher River None +1109 Fisher River Tributary 5 At the confluence with Fisher River None +1074 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Dobson. Approximately 820 feet upstream of Tobe Hudson Road (State Road 1342) None +1086 Flat Branch At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1108 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1156 Flat Shoal Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +900 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 490 feet upstream of Simmons Road (State Road 1827) None +1071 Flat Shoal Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Flat Shoal Creek None +990 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Willow Shade Lane None +1033 Grassy Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +762 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Pilot Knob Park Road (State Road 2053) None +1027 Grassy Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +792 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek None +824 Grassy Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +797 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek None +905 Grassy Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +804 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek None +892 Grassy Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +834 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,390 feet downstream of Shadow Creek Trail None +879 Grassy Creek Tributary 5 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +845 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Pinnacle Hotel Road None +1008 Grassy Creek Tributary 5A At the confluence with Grassy Creek Tributary 5 None +858 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 240 feet downstream of Pinnacle Hotel Road (State Road 2061) None +986 Grassy Creek Tributary 5B At the confluence with Grassy Creek Tributary 5 None +886 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek Tributary 5 None +934 Grassy Creek Tributary 6 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +858 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 380 feet upstream of Mt. Zion Road (State Road 2064) None +931 Grassy Creek Tributary 7 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +884 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Santa Fe Trail None +1042 Grassy Creek Tributary 8 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +905 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek None +915 Grassy Creek Tributary 9 At the confluence with Grassy Creek None +977 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Grassy Creek None +997 Grassy Creek West At the Surry/Wilkes County boundary None +987 Town of Elkin. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the Surry/Wilkes County boundary None +1002 Hagan Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +807 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Miller Gap Road None +1068 Hagan Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Hagan Creek None +848 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 380 feet upstream of Solitude Trail None +891 Hagan Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Hagan Creek None +939 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Hagan Creek None +973 Hagan Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Hagan Creek None +972 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Hagan Creek None +1024 Hatchers Creek At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek None +1101 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 230 feet upstream of Beulah Road None +1122 Heatherly Creek At the confluence with Toms Creek None +918 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 980 feet upstream of Nelson Street None +1130 Horne Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +764 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,780 feet upstream of the confluence of Horne Creek Tributary 1 None +833 Horne Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Horne Creek None +818 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence of Horne Creek Tributary 1A None +861 Horne Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Horne Creek Tributary 1 None +831 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence with Horne Creek Tributary 1 None +855 Jackson Creek At the confluence with Cooks Creek None +1025 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Cooks Creek None +1062 Jackson Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Jackson Creek None +1028 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Rockford Street None +1055 Jackson Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Jackson Creek None +1030 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Smith Road (State Road 1354) None +1067 Johnson Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream of Riverside Drive None +1062 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Riverside Drive None +1097 King Creek At the confluence with Cody Creek None +925 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,710 feet upstream of U.S. 601 Highway None +1002 Little Beaver Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +925 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Copeland School Road (State Road 2209) None +1046 Little Creek At the confluence with Snow Creek None +973 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 810 feet upstream of Melton Road (State Road 1127) None +1244 Little Fisher River At the confluence with Fisher River None +1027 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Richards Road (State Road 1614) None +1209 Little Fisher River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1041 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1077 Little Fisher River Tributary 2 At the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1103 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Dynasty Lane None +1151 Little Fisher River Tributary 3 At the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1112 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 550 feet upstream of NC Highway 89 None +1143 Little Fisher River Tributary 3A At the confluence with Little Fisher River Tributary 3 None +1113 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Fisher River Tributary 3 None +1135 Little Yadkin River At the confluence with Yadkin River None +758 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Yadkin River None +767 Long Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1402 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Mitchell River None +1575 Lovills Creek Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ararat River +992 +991 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Greenhill Road None +1106 Mill Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1099 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 650 feet upstream of Ed Nixon Road (State Road 1321) None +1158 Mitchell River At the confluence with Yadkin River None +875 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Haystack Road (State Road 1328) None +1480 Moores Fork Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Stewarts Creek +1077 +1078 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Race Track Road (State Road 1620) None +1099 Moores Fork Tributary 1 At the confluence with Moores Fork None +1085 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,570 feet upstream of NC Highway 89 None +1110 North Fork Mitchell River At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1232 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Mitchell River None +1248 North Prong South Fork Mitchell River At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1212 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Rams Ridge Trail None +1407 Pheasant Creek At the confluence with Fisher River None +860 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,980 feet upstream of Chandler Road (State Road 2238) None +910 Pilot Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +858 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 750 feet upstream of Leonard Road None +1083 Pilot Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Pilot Creek None +875 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Jim McKinney Road (State Road 2047) None +914 Pilot Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Pilot Creek None +880 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Pilot Creek None +912 Pilot Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Pilot Creek None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 1,130 feet upstream of the confluence with Pilot Creek Tributary 3A None +999 Pilot Creek Tributary 3A At the confluence with Pilot Creek Tributary 3 None +978 Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 1,240 feet upstream of the confluence with Pilot Creek Tributary 3 None +1011 Pilot Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Pilot Creek None +1005 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,870 feet upstream of the confluence with Pilot Creek None +1056 Pine Branch At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1110 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,930 feet upstream of Millstone Trail None +1134 Potters Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +1166 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Mitchell River None +1220 Ring Creek At the confluence with Little Fisher River None +1132 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Richards Road None +1166 Rutledge Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +972 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Reeves Mill Road (State Road 1774) None +1218 Rutledge Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Rutledge Creek None +1077 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of Reeves Mill Road (State Road 1776) None +1107 Seed Cane Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence with Ararat River None +994 City of Mount Airy. Approximately 730 feet upstream of Kirkman Road None +1060 Skin Cabin Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +834 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Stanford Church Road (State Road 2086) None +950 Snow Creek At the confluence with Mitchell River None +880 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of I-77 Highway None +1260 Snow Creek Tributary At the confluence with Snow Creek None +919 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,540 feet downstream of Stanley Mill Road (State Road 1111) None +953 South Fork Mitchell River At the confluence with Mitchell River None +984 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Silver Creek Way None +1623 South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 1 At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1068 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Pat Nixon Road (State Road 1306) None +1091 South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2 At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1159 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 250 feet downstream of Abe Mayes Road (State Road 1319) None +1205 South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2A At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2 None +1173 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,740 feet upstream of the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2 None +1206 South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2B At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River Tributary 2 None +1178 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Oscar Calloway Road None +1210 Stewarts Creek Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Interstate 77 None +1226 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. At the NC/VA State boundary None +1309 Stewarts Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Stewarts Creek None +1011 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, City of Mount Airy. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of West Old McKinney Road (State Road 1429) None +1078 Stewarts Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Stewarts Creek None +1058 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 230 feet upstream of Oak Ridge Drive (State Road 1504) None +1248 Stewarts Creek Tributary 2A At the confluence with Stewarts Creek Tributary 2 None +1117 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 710 feet upstream of Melrose Trail None +1252 Stoney Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +916 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 170 feet upstream of Mills Road None +1208 Toms Creek At the confluence with Ararat River None +879 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Matthews Road (State Road 1830) None +964 Toms Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Toms Creek None +909 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence of Toms Creek Tributary 1A None +954 Toms Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Toms Creek Tributary 1 None +919 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,430 feet upstream of the confluence with Toms Creek Tributary 1 None +934 Toms Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Toms Creek None +931 Town of Pilot Mountain. Approximately 210 feet upstream of Foothill Farm Lane None +951 Turkey Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River None +890 Town of Elkin. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC 268 Highway None +927 West Double Creek At the confluence with East Double Creek None +822 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Old Rockford Road (State Road 2230) None +903 West Double Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with West Double Creek None +834 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Dobson Spring Trail None +899 West Double Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with West Double Creek Tributary 1 None +877 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with West Double Creek Tributary 1 None +907 Whittier Creek At the confluence with Bull Creek None +931 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the confluence with Bull Creek None +987 Wood Branch At the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1117 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with South Fork Mitchell River None +1158 Yadkin River At the Surry/Yadkin/Forsyth County boundary None +758 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County, Town of Elkin. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Elkin Creek +904 +903 Yadkin River Tributary 12 At the confluence with Yadkin River None +866 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Railroad None +881 Yadkin River Tributary 13 At the confluence with Yadkin River None +887 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,260 feet upstream of NC 268 Highway None +895 Yadkin River Tributary 16 At the confluence with Yadkin River None +824 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Railroad None +850 Yadkin River Tributary 18 At the confluence with Yadkin River None +831 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 10 feet upstream of Golden Eagle Trail None +885 Yadkin River Tributary 37 At the confluence with Yadkin River None +800 Unincorporated Areas of Surry County. Approximately 1,680 feet upstream of John Mickles Road (State Road 2075) None +852 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Mount Airy Maps are available for inspection at Mount Airy City Hall, 300 South Main Street, Mount Airy, NC. Town of Dobson Maps are available for inspection at Dobson Town Hall, 307 North Main Street, Dobson, NC. Town of Elkin Maps are available for inspection at Elkin Town Hall, 226 North Bridge Street, Elkin, NC. Town of Pilot Mountain Maps are available for inspection at Pilot Mountain Town Hall, 124 West Main Street, Pilot Mountain, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Surry County Maps are available for inspection at Surry County Building Codes Administration, 118 Hamby Road, Suite 144, Dobson, NC. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 14, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-16812 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, and 173 [Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0182] Petitions for Interim Standards for Rail Tank Cars Used to Transport Toxic-by-Inhalation Hazard Materials AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petitions for rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document solicits comments on the merits of two petitions for rulemaking filed with PHMSA seeking promulgation of an interim standard for railroad tank cars used to transport toxic by inhalation hazard

(TIH)materials. One petition was filed jointly by the American Chemistry Council, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Association of American Railroads, Chlorine Institute, and Railway Supply Institute, and a second petition was filed by The Fertilizer Institute. DATES: Comments must be received by August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-08-0182 by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to the docket management system, including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the dockets to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES ). *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schoonover,

(202)493-6229, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration; Lucinda Henriksen,

(202)493-1345, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration; or Michael Stevens,

(202)366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background By notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)published April 1, 2008, under Docket No. FRA-2006-25169 (HM-246) (73 FR 17818-65), the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT)through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), proposed regulations to improve the crashworthiness protection of tank cars carrying toxic-by-inhalation hazard

(TIH)materials. In addition to certain operational restrictions, the NPRM proposed enhanced TIH tank car performance standards for head and shell impacts. In petitions dated July 3, 2008 and July 7, 2008, the American Chemistry Council, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Association of American Railroads, Chlorine Institute, and Railway Supply Institute (collectively, the Petitioner Group) and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), respectively, have requested that the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) be amended to authorize interim standards for tank cars transporting TIIH materials. Both petitions suggest that the interim standards would be effective until such time as PHMSA and FRA adopt enhanced performance standards for TIH tank cars. The Petitioner Group and TFI petitions were received and acknowledged by PHMSA and assigned petition numbers P-1525 and P-1524, respectively, under Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0182. This document is issued to obtain comments on the merits of the petitions and to assist PHMSA in making a decision of whether to proceed to issue a rule responding to the petitions under the ongoing HM-246 tank car rulemaking. A complete copy of each petition is available in the docket for this proceeding. For convenience, the text of the petitions and accompanying tables are reprinted below. B. Petition P-1525 Is Quoted As Follows: The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Chlorine Institute (CI), and the Railway Supply Institute

(RSI)(Petitioners) submit this petition to PHMSA to implement a new interim standard for tank cars used to transport TIH materials. ACC is a trade association representing 130 member companies that account for approximately 85 percent of the capacity for the production of basic industrial chemicals in the United States. ASLRRA is an organization which represents over 450 member railroads in the class II and class III railroad industry. AAR is a trade association whose membership includes freight railroads that operate 72 percent of the line-haul mileage, employ 92 percent of the workers, and account for 95 percent of the freight revenue of all railroads in the United States. CI is a 220 member, not-for-profit trade association of chlor-alkali producers worldwide, as well as packagers, distributors, users, and suppliers accounting for more than 98 percent of the total chlorine production capacity of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. RSI is the international trade association of suppliers to the nation's freight railroads and rail passenger systems. The RSI Tank Car Committee members include the major North American tank car builders and leasing companies, who own and lease approximately 70% of the North American tank car fleet. I. Need For A New Interim Tank Car Standard On April 1, 2008, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking containing a new tank car standard for TIH materials. 1 Part of that proposal was that two years after issuance of a final rule, newly constructed tank cars transporting TIH materials would be required to comply with the new standard. Five years after issuance of a final rule, only tank cars constructed of normalized steel could be used to transport TIH materials. Eight years after issuance of a final rule, all tank cars transporting TIH materials would need to be in compliance with the new standard. 1 Docket No. FRA-2006-25169, 73 Fed. Reg. 17818. The proposed standard represents an innovative approach to tank car design. The purpose of the proposed standard is to significantly reduce the probability of release should a tank car be involved in an accident. However, the tank car industry cannot meet the standard today; the NPRM is truly technology-forcing. Petitioners strongly support PHMSA's initiative to create a new tank car standard that would appreciably improve the safety of TIH transportation. Petitioners are committed to doing their part to minimize the occurrence of accidents and to reduce the possibility of a release should an accident occur. PHMSA's effort to dramatically reduce the probability of a release of TIH materials through enhanced tank car standards is a goal shared by Petitioners. However, the publication of the NPRM has had two unintended effects. One, publication has delayed the phasing out of aging tank cars. Two, publication has threatened to cause a shortage of cars needed for the transportation of TIH materials. Since under the NPRM tank cars not meeting the final standard would have to be removed from TIH service within eight years of issuance of the final rule, the NPRM has had the unintended consequence of providing an incentive for shippers and lessors to stop purchasing new tank cars for TIH transportation, pending the issuance of the final rule. From the perspective of both shippers who own tank cars used to transport their TIH materials and lessors who lease tank cars used to transport TIH materials, investments in new tank cars cannot be justified unless those cars will be used for at least two decades. Note that under DOT regulations, tank cars have a service life of fifty years. 2 2 49 CFR 215.203. Absent the NPRM, many older tank cars likely would be replaced by tank cars exceeding minimum DOT specifications. Unfortunately, because of the economic disincentive to purchase new tank cars for TIH transportation, those tank cars are not being replaced. During the meetings on the NPRM held in May, shipper after shipper stated that the NPRM threatened to cause a shortage of tank cars for TIH transportation. The shippers stated that lessors are reluctant to renew leases partly due to a concern that the NPRM's call for a dramatically new tank car design will increase their liability should a tank car meeting minimum PHMSA standards be involved in an accident. II. An Interim Standard Based On Probability Of Release Petitioners have a solution to these problems. Petitioners propose that PHMSA promulgate an interim standard that provides for the construction of tank cars that significantly reduce the probability of release of product using existing technology and grandfather those cars for twenty-five years following issuance of the final rule. Such a standard is in the public interest for the following reasons: • By authorizing the use of tank cars that exceed PHMSA minimum standards for a period of time exceeding the eight-year phase-out period suggested in the NPRM, the disincentive to replace minimum specification cars will be reduced. • To the extent shippers and lessors replace older cars with cars less likely to release TIH in the event of an accident, safety will be significantly enhanced. Similarly, by reducing the disincentive to replace older cars with cars less likely to release TIH in the event of an accident, PHMSA's goal of replacing older cars will be realized sooner. • By limiting the grandfather period to twenty-five years, instead of the normal fifty year useful life provided by DOT regulations, PHMSA would prevent creating an incentive to replace cars prematurely prior to the effective date of the final TIH standard to avoid, perhaps, the greater costs involved in constructing cars meeting the final standard. • PHMSA will avoid the unintended consequence of creating a shortage of cars for the transportation of TIH materials. • An interim standard providing for a significant reduction in the probability of release is consistent with PHMSA's objective of promulgating a new tank car standard representing a significant improvement over the existing minimum specifications. At the same time, such an interim standard would reduce the commercial and liability concerns of lessors that are contributing to a reluctance to enter into new leases for TIH tank cars. III. The Research Underlying Conditional Probability of Release Petitioners' proposed interim standard is based on research conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

(UIUC)and the RSI-AAR Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project (Tank Car Project). UIUC set out to analyze the “conditional probability of release”

(CPR)of product should a tank car be involved in an accident. 3 3 While there have been questions raised as to the extent to which safety is enhanced by top fittings modifications in the UIUC report, there is not doubt that the proposed interim tank car would reduce the CPR by a substantial amount and provide for improved accident survivability. UIUC's work is based on a report assessing lading loss probabilities published by the Tank Car Project. 4 The lading loss report is based on 6,752 cars damaged in accidents. Consequently we can demonstrate with confidence through the CPR method a significant safety improvement. 4 Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project, “Safety Performance of Tank Cars in Accidents: Probabilities of Lading Loss” (RA-05-02 January 2006). UIUC calculated the CPR for tank cars used to transport chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, the 105A500W and 112J340W tank cars, respectively. 5 UIUC then compared the CPR for the chlorine and anhydrous ammonia cars with CPRs for enhanced cars. The enhanced cars had thicker heads and shells and improved top fittings protection. In the case of chlorine, the thicker heads and shells were based on the 105J600W specification. For anhydrous ammonia, the thicker heads and shells were based on the 112J500W specification. Because the enhanced cars are existing DOT specification tank cars, the tank car database again served as the basis for the CPR calculation for the head and shell improvements. 5 Saat and Barkan, “Risk Analysis of Rail Transport of Chlorine & Ammonia on U.S. Railroad Mainlines” (Feb. 27, 2006). The top fittings protection was based on a new top fittings design. The design was intended to survive potential forces exerted on the top fittings in a rollover accident. More specifically, the top fittings were designed to survive a rollover with a 9 mph linear velocity. IV. Using CPR as the Basis for Improved Performance UIUC's research points the way to a performance improvement which is PHMSA's ultimate objective in its rulemaking proceeding on TIH tank car standards. In the case of both chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, the CPR improvement as calculated by UIUC is significant. For example, chlorine calculations show an improvement of 63 percent, a reduction from 5 to 2 percent. For anhydrous ammonia, the improvement shown is 71 percent, a reduction from 8 to 2 percent. Consequently, Petitioners propose an interim tank car design with the following features: • A design standard achieving CPR improvement from the head and shell through the use of higher DOT class tank cars than currently required by DOT regulations (See the table attached hereto as Exhibit 1); • An alternative performance standard requiring CPR improvement equivalent or better in the head and shell as compared to the design standard; and • A top fittings protection performance standard. The design standard would require that in lieu of 105*300W or 112*340W tank cars, a 105J500W or 112J500W car, respectively, would be required, with a minimum head and shell thickness of 13/16 ′ and a full height 1/2 ” thick or equivalent head shield. A minimum head and shell thickness would be included to prevent a shipper from using a peculiar tank car that, for example, contains shell protection but does not contain sufficient head protection. Similarly, in lieu of a 105*500W car, a 105J600W car would be required, with a minimum head and shell thickness of 15/16 ′ and a full height 1/2 ” thick or equivalent head shield. For those commodities currently shipped in 105J600W cars, the minimum thickness would also apply, but no upgrading of the DOT class tank car would be required since the 600-pound car is the highest DOT class tank car. The top fittings protection standard would require a design that could survive a rollover with a 9 mph linear velocity, the criterion used in the UIUC study. Note that AAR's Tank Car Committee has already approved two designs meeting this standard. In addition, AAR understands the Chlorine Institute is developing its own top fittings standard that will meet the 9 mph criterion and DOT regulations. In order to achieve this performance, a stronger top fittings protection system must be permitted in lieu of the bolted-on protective housing now mandated in the regulations. Welded attachment has proven to be an effective method and should be allowed. For the alternative performance standard, Petitioners propose that DOT use a formula requiring improvements to the head and shell that are at least as good, from a CPR perspective, as the designs standard. Petitioners propose the following formula: 1−(CPR of tank car−CPR of minimum specification tank car) ≥ tank improvement factor for the commodity. The tank improvement factor is a factor that achieves a CPR improvement from the head and shell at least as good as the design specifications. The table in Exhibit 1 shows the tank improvement factors for TIH materials commonly transported by rail. As the table indicates, the tank improvement factor for a specific commodity is based on a particular head and shell thickness. The head and shell thicknesses were derived from the formula in 49 CFR 179.100-6, taking into account design criteria such as commodity density, gross rail load, outage, and car length and diameter. Petitioners also suggest that DOT permit use of an alternative methodology to demonstrate improvement equivalent to the tank improvement factor calculation. Of course, use of such an alternative would be subject to DOT approval. Finally, in the case of chlorine, ACC and CI have taken the performance criteria one step further. ACC and CI worked with UIUC to calculate an alternative design that would achieve the desired CPR improvement, 45 percent for head and shell improvements, 63 percent including top fittings. • The chlorine design has a 0.777 inch head, a 0.777 inch shell, and a 0.375 inch jacket with head shield of 0.625 inch. 6 6 UIUC's CPR calculations assume that an equivalent level of safety performance can be obtained by thickening the head shield and jacket to compensate for equivalent reductions in thickness in the tank head and shell, respectively. Further technical review of the head shield is currently taking place to determine the appropriate thickness. This thickness will be between 0.625 inch and 0.859 inch. • This specific alternative design utilizes jacket material which is steel with minimum tensile strength of 70 ksi and minimum elongation in 2 inches of 21%. The calculations show that the CPR target can be met in more than one way. With this calculation having been made for chlorine, Petitioners also propose that this alternative specification specifically be included in the interim standard. V. Proposed Regulatory Language [Petitioners propose specific amendments to 49 CFR parts 171, 172, and 173. The proposed amendments would address definitions, entries in the Hazardous Materials Table, and tank car authorizations for TIH materials. The complete petition may be reviewed by accessing the docket identified at the beginning of this document.] Table I Commodity name DOT minimum specification Tank improvement factor

(TIF)Conditional probability of release Acetone Cyanohydrin, Stabilized 105J500W 0.67 0.0855 Acrolein 105J600W 0.80 0.0419 Allyl Alcohol 105J500W 0.67 0.0855 Ammonia, Anhydrous 105J500W 0.69 0.0855 Bromine 105J500W 0.68 0.1028 Chlorine 105J600W 0.69 0.0509 Chloropicrin 105J500W 0.56 0.0855 Chlorosulfonic Acid 105J500W 0.56 0.0855 Dimethyl Sulfate 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Dinitrogen Tetroxide 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Ethyl Chloroformate 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Ethylene Oxide 105J500W 0.67 0.0855 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 105J500W 0.68 0.1028 Hydrogen Chloride, Refrig. Liquid 105J600W 0.0284 Hydrogen Cyanide, Stabilized 105J600W 0.80 0.0419 Hydrogen Fluoride, Anhydrous 105J500W 0.63 0.0809 Hydrogen Sulfide 105J600W 0.0299 Methyl Bromide 105J500W 0.56 0.0855 Methyl Mercaptan 105J500W 0.67 0.0855 Nitrosyl Chloride 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Phosphorus Trichloride 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Sulfur Dioxide 105J500W 0.57 0.0855 Sulfur Trioxide, Stabilized 105J500W 0.56 0.0855 Sulfuric Acid, Fuming 105J500W 0.51 0.0802 Titanium Tetrachloride 105J500W 0.56 0.0855 Exhibit 1 Commodity name Baseline DOT tank (DOT min. or accepted DOT STD) Current DOT specification Head shields types Head thickness (in.) Shell thickness (in.) DOT specification tank car used to calculate TIF Proposed DOT specification meeting TIF Head shields type Head thickness (in.) Shell thickness (in.) Tank improvement factor

(TIF)Acetone Cyanohydrin, Stabilized 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8951 0.8951 0.67 Acrolein 105J500W No 0.8950 0.8950 105J600W Full-Height 1.2429 1.2429 0.80 Allyl Alcohol 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8951 0.8951 0.67 Ammonia, Anhydrous 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 1.0300 0.89 0.69 Bromine 105A300W No 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.68 Chlorine 105J500W No 0.7870 0.7870 105J600W Full-Height 1.1360 0.9810 0.69 Chloropicrin 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.56 Chlorosulfonic Acid 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.56 Dimethyl Sulfate 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.8179 0.57 Dinitrogen Tetroxide 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.81798 0.57 Ethyl Chloroformate 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.8179 0.57 Ethylene Oxide 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8951 0.8951 0.67 Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene 105S300W No 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.68 Hydrogen Chloride, Refrig. Liquid 105J600W Full-Height 105J600W Full-Height Hydrogen Cyanide, Stabilized 105A500W No 0.8950 0.8950 105J600W Full-Height 1.2429 1.2429 0.80 Hydrogen Flouride, Anhydrous 112A340W No 0.7040 0.7040 105J500W Full-Height 0.8951 0.8951 0.63 Hydrogen Sulfide 105J600W No 105J600W Full-Height Methyl Bromide 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.56 Methyl Mercaptan 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8951 0.8951 0.67 Nitrosyl Chloride 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.8179 0.57 Phosphorus Trichloride 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.8179 0.57 Sulfur Dioxide 105J300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8179 0.8179 0.57 Sulfur Trioxide, Stabilized 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.56 Sulfuric Acid, Fuming 105S300W Full-Height 0.5980 0.5980 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.51 Titanium Tetrachloride 105S300W Full-Height 0.5625 0.5625 105J500W Full-Height 0.8125 0.8125 0.56 C. Petition P-1524 Is Quoted as Follows: The Fertilizer Institute

(TFI)is the national trade association representing fertilizer producers, importers, wholesalers and retailers. TFI's mission is to promote and protect the fertilizer industry. Fertilizer nutrients provide the “food” plants need to grow, ensure there is an adequate supply of nutritious food and animal feed, and a bountiful supply of fiber and biofuels to help meet the nation's energy needs. Without fertilizer in general, and in particular ammonia, our nation's food and energy supply would be adversely affected and the world would be without forty percent of today's harvest. TFI and its anhydrous ammonia shipper members support DOT's efforts for enhanced safety of tank cars, and the anhydrous ammonia industry is committed to doing its part to minimize the occurrence of accidents and to reduce the probability of a release should an accident occur. We have been active participants in the Department of Transportation's

(DOT)efforts prior to the April 1 issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking for enhanced safety standards for tank cars carrying toxic-by-inhalation materials. TFI members ship approximately 52,000 carloads of anhydrous ammonia each year and own or lease over 4,000 tank cars. Since the issuance of the proposal, and after testimony given during public hearings held in May, it has become evident that there is much confusion and concern not only by shippers of anhydrous ammonia but from car manufacturers as well. The timeline for compliance, the lack of focus by the Volpe Center on an ammonia concept car, and the action by the Association of American Railroads

(AAR)to put into effect CPC 1187, are examples of the concerns raised. Our specific concerns were detailed in comments submitted to the docket on June 2. In our comments we point out that car builders and leasing companies have not been willing to renew current leases due to this confusion. As a result, an unintentional consequence of the proposal will create a serious shortage of cars needed in the near future for anhydrous ammonia. Unless this situation is addressed, it could result in a switch to truck or business interruptions. TFI has reviewed the petition for an interim standard for tank cars used to transport toxic-by-inhalation

(TIH)materials submitted by the American Chemistry Council, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Association of American Railroads, The Chlorine Institute and the Railway Supply Institute. TFI supports an interim standard for tank cars and many aspects of the petition filed by the above associations. However, since attempts to include stipulations for an interim anhydrous ammonia tank car could not be agreed to by some of the associations above, TFI submits this petition for an interim tank car standard for anhydrous ammonia to DOT for consideration. The Current Anhydrous Ammonia Tank Car The ammonia industry has specific reasons for requesting an accommodation for the current 112J340W car: • Making an accommodation will also allow more time for infrastructure upgrades to handle the eventual 286,000 pound car. Without an appropriate phase-in schedule, there could be serious business interruptions in the marketplace or a switch to truck transportation. • The 112J340W cars in ammonia service are on average only 10-12 years old. Without an extended life, there will be reluctance for these car companies to remain in the ammonia market. Some leasing companies have already indicated that they will not renew leases upon expiration of the current lease agreements for the 112J340W ammonia tank cars due, in part, to uncertainties surrounding this NPRM. This could cause a shortage of ammonia cars available for lease and force ammonia shippers to find alternate sources of transportation. • The tank cars involved in the Minot, N.D. accident were 105J300W non-normalized cars with half head shields welded to the jacket, tank and head thickness of .5625, and equipped with F double shelf couplers. The typical 112J340W car, the current ammonia car, built since 1989 has improved TC-128B normalized steel specifications that include in excess of .608 heads and shells that proved themselves in the Minot derailment. In response to the Minot derailment, ammonia shippers voluntarily modernized their fleet of ammonia tank cars, swapping out non-normalized steel cars (pre-1989 built) for normalized steel cars (post-1989 built). Ammonia shippers have already spent considerable effort to change out their fleet from the pre-1989 built car to the current 112J340W. These shippers had the understanding that this effort would be considered with the NPRM. Interim Standard for Tank Cars in Anhydrous Ammonia Service TFI's petition requests that DOT consider the following for tank cars in anhydrous ammonia service as an interim standard: • Require the retirement of all ammonia pre-1989 non-normalized steel cars by Dec. 31, 2010; • Authorize the use of 112J340W ammonia cars built prior to 2001 until Dec. 31, 2021; • Authorize the use of 112J340W ammonia cars built after 2001 for a life of 20 years; and • Authorize the use of an 112J400 pound car enhanced with a thicker jacket for ammonia service beginning Jan. 1, 2009, with a 25 year service life from the date of the final ruling. Summary In conclusion, the TFI suggests that the following timeline concerning the design of anhydrous ammonia cars be considered: Car type Date car can be built Service life Pre-1989 Not in production Until December 31, 2010. 340 Until Jan. 1, 2009 Pre-2001 built: To December 31, 2021. Post-2001 built: 20 years from built date. 400/500 Jan. 1, 2009 until DOT final rule 25 years from date of DOT final rule. DOT Effective date of final rule Full life. Ammonia shippers are voluntarily removing pre-1989 non-normalized steel cars from their fleet and this has come at considerable expense. The current 112J340W car has a full head shield and the ammonia industry has voluntarily implemented a five year, rather than ten year mandated, requalification test schedule. This overall plan is reasonable, makes sound business sense and accomplishes the smooth transition of the ammonia car fleet. TFI and its ammonia shipper members respectively request approval of our request. D. Purpose of the Notice The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments on the merit of petitions for rulemaking filed by Petitioner Group and TFI. Both petitions request PHMSA to issue interim standards for tank cars used for the transportation of TIH hazard material by railroad tank car. The safety implications of the proposals in the petitions will be given careful consideration as we determine whether regulatory action is needed. Issued in Washington, DC on July 15, 2008 under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106. Theodore L. Willke, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. E8-16535 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 080702817-8838-01] RIN 0648-AX00 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Control Date; Northern Mariana Islands Pelagic Longline Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notification of control date; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that anyone who enters the pelagic longline fishery in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

(CNMI)after June 19, 2008 (the “control date”), is not guaranteed future participation in the fishery if the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommends, and NMFS approves, a program that limits entry into the fishery, or other fishery management measures. The Council is concerned about potentially-uncontrolled expansion of the CNMI-based pelagic longline fishery and the potential resultant interactions with and impacts on small-boat pelagic fisheries and localized depletion of pelagic fish stocks. DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing by September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this action, identified by 0648-AX00, to either of the following addresses: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal *www.regulations.gov* ; or • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *www.regulations.gov* without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Wiedoff, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2272. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At its 142nd meeting held from June 16-19, 2008, the Council adopted a control date of June 19, 2008, applicable to persons who are contemplating entering the CNMI-based longline fishery for pelagic fishes. The purpose of the control date is to notify fishermen that after June 19, 2008, they may not be guaranteed access to the fishery if the Council recommends, and NMFS approves, establishing a limited entry program or other measures to manage the fishery. The Council has not yet recommended limiting new entry or imposing any other management measures in this fishery. This control date addresses the Council's concern over the potential for rapid and uncontrolled expansion of the CNMI longline fishery. This concern is based on previous rapid and uncontrolled expansions of the pelagic longline fisheries in Hawaii and American Samoa, and the resulting concerns about localized deletion of resources and impacts on small-boat fisheries. In Hawaii from 1988 to 1990, the longline fleet doubled from 50 to 100 vessels. In American Samoa from 1996 to 1997, the fleet tripled from 7 to 21 vessels. To control these previous rapid expansions, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented limited entry programs in both of these fisheries (in 1993 and 2004, respectively). The Council adopted the June 19, 2008, control date to notify current and potential fishery participants that it may also consider limiting participation in the CNMI-based longline fishery, if necessary. Two domestic longline vessels began fishing in U.S. EEZ waters around CNMI in 2007, and other longline vessel operators have expressed interest in fishing there. Some of these other operators already hold the necessary general longline permits issued by NMFS allowing them to participate in the open-access CNMI fishery. If a rapid expansion of the fishery were to occur, there is a potential for gear conflicts between the longline fishery and the CNMI small-boat pelagic troll fishery, which harvests many of the same species targeted by longline vessels. A large and uncontrolled longline fishery could cause localized depletion of pelagic fish stocks, which would jeopardize the sustainability of the small trolling fleet. There is also a potential for longline vessels to fish at the CNMI's offshore seamounts. The seamounts are important to the pelagic trolling fleet, and localized depletion of fish stocks at the seamounts would have significant negative impacts on the troll fishery. The Council established a control date of June 2, 2005, for pelagic longline and purse seine fisheries in the U.S. EEZ of the western Pacific (70 FR 47782, August 15, 2005) in response to concerns about overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and yellowfin tuna in the central and western Pacific. The June 19, 2008, control date supersedes the previous control date, as it applies to the CNMI longline fishery. The Council and NMFS seek public comment about whether or not a control date is needed, whether this is an appropriate control date, and how the control date might be applied to a future management program for the CNMI-based pelagic longline fishery, if such a program is developed by the Council and NMFS. Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into fisheries, as new participants entering the fisheries after the control date are put on notice that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fisheries. Establishment of this control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the CNMI pelagic longline fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. The Council may choose a different control date, or it may choose a management regime that does not involve a control date. Other criteria, such as documentation of landings or sales, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery. The Council or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Classification This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 17, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16843 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 142 Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Internatioal Trade Administration (A-570-848) Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0665 and

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). The review was initiated with respect to six companies 1 and covers the period September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. 1 These companies are Anhui Tongxin Aquatic Product & Food Co., Ltd. (Anhui), Jingdezhen Garay Foods Co., Ltd. (Jingdezhen), Shanghai Now Again International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Now Again), Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck), Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou), and Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (Hi-King). On November 15, 2007, we selected Xuzhou and Hi-King for individual examination in this administrative review. See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia entitled “2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated November 15, 2007. On November 16, 2007, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to Xuzhou and Hi-King. The Department also issued either a separate-rate status application or separate-rate status certification to the firms not selected for individual examination ( *i.e.* , Anhui, Jingdezhen, Shanghai Now Again, and Xiping Opeck), in which the Department asked these companies to submit their separate-rate information in the event they wished to qualify for separate-rate status for the POR. On December 12, 2007, Jingdezhen, Shanghai Now Again, and Xiping Opeck submitted letters to the Department, stating that they did not make any sale or entry, directly or through any third parties, of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 16, 2008, Anhui stated that it did not have any entries or export sales, directly or indirectly, of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Jingdezhen, Shanghai Now Again, Xiping Opeck, and Anhui requested that the Department rescind its review with respect to these companies. On January 29, 2008, the Crawfish Processors Alliance, the petitioner, withdrew its request for a review with respect to Anhui, Jingdezhen, and Xuzhou. Further, on February 20, 2008, Xuzhou withdrew its request for a review. Rescission of Administrative Review in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. As indicated above, Xuzhou withdrew its request for a review on February 20, 2008, which is after the 90-day deadline. Xuzhou maintained that its request to withdraw its request was made early in the review and, with the exception of the petitioner's request for a review (which was withdrawn in a timely manner 2 ), no other party has requested a review for Xuzhou. 2 The petitioner withdrew its request for a review of Jingdezhen, Xuzhou, and Anhui within 90 days after date of publication of notice of initiation in the **Federal Register** . Given the fact that we have not yet committed significant resources to the review of Xuzhou, we find it reasonable to accept Xuzhou's request to withdraw from this review. Specifically, we have not issued supplemental questionnaires regarding Xuzhou's section C and D responses, we have not calculated a preliminary margin for Xuzhou, nor have we verified Xuzhou's data. As indicated above, the petitioner withdrew its request for a review of Jingdezhen, Xuzhou, and Anhui in a timely manner. Because no party has opposed the request for the withdrawal of the review of Jingdezhen, Xuzhou, or Anhui and for the reasons stated above regarding Xuzhou's withdrawal, the Department is rescinding this review in part with respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department intends to examine claims made by Shanghai Now Again and Xiping Opeck of no sales or entries of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR by examining U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)entry data. Assessment The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Jingdezhen, Anhui, and Xuzhou, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 16, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16855 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XJ14 Marine Mammals; File No. 10133 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Zvi Livnat, P.O. Box 1209, Kealakekua, Hawaii 96750 has been issued a permit to conduct commercial/educational photography. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapeman or Jennifer Skidmore, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2008, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 15137) that a request for a commercial/educational photography permit to take spinner dolphins ( *Stenella longirostris* ) had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant is authorized to film human interactions with spinner dolphins in the coastal waters of Hawaii and Maui. The purpose of the filming is to produce a public service announcement to educate residents and tourists of the Hawaiian Islands about the dangers that swim-with programs pose to the species and illustrate proper dolphin watching techniques. Up to 2,710 spinner dolphins could be harassed annually during aerial and vessel-based close approaches for filming, including underwater filming. Up to 230 pantropical spotted dolphins ( *Stenella attenuata* ), and 50 bottlenose dolphins ( *Tursiops truncatus* ) could be incidentally harassed or filmed annually. Filming would occur from March to October of each year over a period of 4 years. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: July 17, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16844 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeal by Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing. SUMMARY: This notice is provided to cancel the July 25, 2008 public hearing that was to be held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)in Irvine, California regarding the appeal filed with the Department of Commerce by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA). The public hearing was noticed in the **Federal Register** on July 8, 2008, and is being canceled because the venue that had agreed to serve as the site for the hearing—the Bren Events Center of the University of California, Irvine—has withdrawn its agreement to do so. The public and Federal agency comment period for the TCA Consistency Appeal will remain open July 21, 2008 through August 4, 2008. DATES: NOAA will not be conducting a public hearing in the TCA Consistency Appeal on July 25, 2008, but the public and Federal agency comment period will remain open from July 21, 2008 to August 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the appeal may be submitted by e-mail to *gcos.comments@noaa.gov* or by mail addressed to Thomas Street at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 15, 2008, TCA filed notice of an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.* , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. TCA appealed an objection by the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to TCA's proposed construction of an extension to California State Route 241 in northern San Diego and southern Orange Counties, California. Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the Commission's objection if he determines that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that:

(1)The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner;

(2)the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and

(3)no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the state's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. On March 17, 2008, NOAA published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing, among other things, that a public hearing might be held concerning this appeal. On July 8, 2008, NOAA published notice in the **Federal Register** describing scheduling and procedural information about the hearing. The hearing was to be held at the Bren Events Center of the University of California, Irvine (Bren Center) on July 25, 2008. The Bren Center was chosen in part because of its capacity. The facility can seat 4,700 people, which is substantially more than the crowd of approximately 3,500 that attended the Commission's hearing on the TCA project earlier this year. After notice of the hearing was published, the Bren Center was contacted by a number of interested individuals and groups that intend to attend the hearing. Based on these communications, the Bren Center staff estimated over 10,000 people may attend the public hearing, and determined their facility could not accommodate a crowd of this size, as it would exceed the facility's capacity and security resources. On July 10, the Bren Center staff informed NOAA that they withdrew their agreement to serve as the site for the hearing, forcing NOAA to cancel the July 25 hearing date. NOAA is currently looking at later dates for a hearing and alternative sites that are consistent with available resources. In the meantime, the public may submit written comments on the appeal from July 21 through August 4, the period established in NOAA's July 8 **Federal Register** notice. Specifically, written comments may be submitted by e-mail to *gcos.comments@noaa.gov* or by mail addressed to Thomas Street, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments must be received by August 4, 2008. A summary of relevant issues as well as additional background on the appeal appeared in the **Federal Register** notice of March 17, 2008, announcing the appeal, and may be found on the Internet at *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.com.htm* . Questions should be directed to Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* . (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Assistance.) Dated: July 18, 2008. Jeffrey S. Dillen, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. [FR Doc. E8-16880 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG64 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean, June-July 2008 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 Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to the University of Texas, Institute for Geophysics

(UTIG)for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the northeastern Pacific Ocean during June-July, 2008. DATES: Effective June 30, 2008, through July 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application are available by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the Internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 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 to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either approve or deny the authorization. Summary of Request On March 4, 2008, NMFS received an application from UTIG for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, with research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a bathymetric and seismic survey program approximately 100 km (62 mi) off the Oregon coast in the northeastern Pacific Ocean during June-July, 2008. The purpose of the research program was outlined in NMFS' notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 42045, August 1, 2007). Description of the Activity The seismic surveys will involve one vessel, the R/V *Thomas G. Thompson* (Thompson), which is scheduled to depart from Seattle, Washington on June 30, 2008 and return on July 19, 2008. The exact dates of the activities may vary by a few days because of weather conditions, scheduling, repositioning, streamer operations and adjustments, Generator-Injector airgun (GI gun) deployment, or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard. The ultra-high resolution 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic surveys around the methane vent systems of Hydrate Ridge will take place off the Oregon coast in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. The overall area within which the seismic surveys will occur is located between approximately 44° and 45° N. and 124.5° and 126° W. (Figure 1 in UTIG's application). The surveys will occur approximately 100 km (62 mi) offshore from Oregon in water depths between approximately 650 and 1,200 m (2,132 and 3,936 ft), entirely within the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)of the U.S. The seismic survey will image the subsurface structures that control venting. The vent systems control whether the methane is directly released into the ocean and atmosphere or stored in methane hydrate. Methane hydrate storage has the potential for rapid dissociation and release into the ocean or atmosphere. The subsurface structure that will be imaged will determine the mechanisms involved in methane venting. The results will be applicable to the numerous vent systems that exist on continental margins worldwide. The data will also be used to design observatories that can monitor and assess the methane fluxes and mechanisms of methane release that operate on Hydrate Ridge. The *Thompson* will deploy two low-energy GI guns as an energy source (with a discharge volume of 40-60 in 3 for each gun or a total of 80-120 in 3 ), and a P-Cable system. The 12 m (39.5 ft) long P-cable system is supplied by Northampton Oceanographic Center in the U.K. The towed system will consist of at least 12 streamers (and possibly up to 24) spaced approximately 12.5 m (41 ft) apart and each containing 11 hydrophones, all summed to a single channel. The energy to the GI guns is compressed air supplied by a compressor on board the source vessel. As the GI guns are towed along the survey lines, the P-Cable system will receive the returning acoustic signals. The seismic program will consist of three survey grids: two of the surveys each cover a 15 km 2 area and the third covers a 25 km 2 (see Figure 1 in UTIG's application). The line spacing within the three survey grids will either be 75 m (246 ft) (if 12 streamers are used) or 150 m (492 ft) (if 24 streamers are used). The total line km to be surveyed in the grids at the 75 m spacing is 975 km (605.8 mi), including turns. Water depths at the seismic survey locations range from 650 to 1,200 m (2,132 to 3,936 ft). Most (92 percent) of the survey will take place over intermediate (100-1,000 m) water depths; the remaining 8 percent will be in water deeper than 1,000 m. If time permits, an additional 300 line km will be surveyed along the outside edges of the three grids. The GI guns are expected to operate for a total of approximately 150 hours during the cruise. There will be additional seismic operations associated with equipment testing, start-up, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In addition to the operations of the two GI guns and P-cable system, a Simrad EM300 30 kHz multibeam echosounder, and a Knudsen 12 kHz 320BR sub-bottom profiler will be used during the proposed cruise. A more detailed description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic source specifications, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 42045, August 1, 2007). Safety Radii Received sound levels have been modeled by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for a number of airgun configurations, including one 45-in 3 GI gun, in relation to distance and direction from the airgun(s). The model does not allow for bottom interactions and is most directly applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the maximum distances from the GI guns where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa

(rms)are predicted to be received in deep (>1000-m, 3,280-ft) water are 8, 23, and 220 m (26.2, 75.5, and 721.8 ft), respectively and 12, 35, and 330 m (39.4, 115, and 1,082.7 ft), respectively for intermediate water depths (100-1000m, 328-3,280 ft). Because the model results are for a 2.5-m (8.2-ft) tow depth, the above distances slightly underestimate the distances for the 45-in3 GI gun towed at 4-m (13-ft) depth. A general discussion of acoustic thresholds and safety radii, as well as further discussion of the modeling conducted by L-DEO, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 42045, August 1, 2007). Comments and Responses A notice of receipt of the UTIG application and proposed IHA was published in the **Federal Register** on May 23, 2008 (73 FR 30076). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission

(MMC)and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE). *MMC Comment:* The MMC states that because the applicant is requesting authority to take marine mammals by harassment only, NMFS should require that operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could have occurred incidental to the seismic survey. The MMC further recommends that any such suspension should remain in place until NMFS has:

(1)reviewed the situation and determined that further mortalities or serious injuries are unlikely to occur; or

(2)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS concurs with MMC's recommendations and has included a requirement to this effect in the IHA. *CRE Comment:* The CRE states that it does not oppose the NMFS-issued IHA to UTIG because it does not believe that the proposed seismic activities will harm marine mammals. However, CRE requests that the IHA be consistent with the Council for Regulatory Effectiveness White Paper (CRE White Paper): The NMFS Should Regulate Seismic Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in a Two-Tier Manner. *Response:* NMFS concurs with CRE's that the UTIG's seismic activities will not harm marine mammals provided the described monitoring and mitigation measures are implemented and acknowledges the receipt of the CRE White Paper. The recommendations stated in the document will be reviewed and considered by the agency on the issuance of future regulations. *CRE Comment:* The CRE White Paper recommends that the final IHA issued to UTIG for the proposed operations should use line transect analysis to estimate exposures including:

(1)the number of line miles (or line kilometers) traversed,

(2)estimated radial distance to edge of a safety, impact, or exclusion zone; and

(3)the densities of marine mammals present. No models should be used to estimate exposures before the models meet Data Quality Act (“DQA”) guidelines; before they meet Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling (“CREM”) guidelines; and before they pass external peer review. No models should be used before they have been demonstrated to be more reliable than the currently approved and used methodology: line transect analysis. *Response:* UTIG's application was prepared for UTIG and NSF by LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates (LGL). In the application for the proposed seismic operations, LGL notes that it is using the line transect method to estimate marine mammal exposures and determine safety zones, it is not using the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM). AIM was developed and is proprietary to Marine Acoustics, Inc. This is consistent with applications for recent previous NSF-funded research seismic cruises conducted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography

(SIO)and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO). The use of AIM is proposed for use by NSF in its Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) for the R/V *Marcus Langseth* . NMFS expects the Draft PEIS will be released for public comment this summer. In that regard, AIM has been independently reviewed and found to be compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency's Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling

(CREM)(see *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/lfa_aim_review.pdf* for more information on this model). *CRE Comment:* The CRE White Paper recommends that the final IHA issued to UTIG for the proposed operations should use average density numbers to estimate marine mammal exposures to seismic. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the best science available supports the use of average density estimates whenever possible. However, there may be situations where NMFS needs to use maximum density estimates. For example, if there are seasonal differences in abundance and distribution between dates when the marine mammal surveys were conducted and the dates for seismic data acquisition. Also, NMFS has stated several times in previous IHA authorizations, that the estimates for “exposure” do not mean that all animals will be harassed at the sound pressure level being calculated. *CRE Comment:* The CRE White Paper recommends that the final IHA issued to UTIG for the proposed operations should explain that exposure to seismic does not necessarily equate to harassment and a taking under the MMPA. CRE explains that “simple exposure to sound, or brief reactions that do not disrupt behavioral patterns in a potentially significant manner, do not constitute harassment or 'taking'. By potentially significant, CRE means 'in a manner that might have deleterious effects to the well-being of individual marine mammals or their populations.” CRE would like this explanation factored into NMFS' use and discussion of Line Transect Analysis. Also, CRE would like the fact that “whales do not sit still and therefore do not get the full dose of sound on every shot” factored into exposure estimates. *Response:* When marine mammals are exposed to very strong sound sources underwater, like pulses from seismic airguns, temporary or permanent hearing impairment due to threshold shifts is a possibility. Non-auditory physical effects or injuries may also theoretically occur, such as stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox *et al.* (2006), Southall *et al.* (2007); both as cited in UTIG's application (2008)). NMFS concurs that momentary behavioral reactions to a sound source such as an echosounder or seismic airgun pulse do not necessarily rise to the level of “take” by behavioral harassment. NMFS has stated several times in previous IHA authorizations, that the estimates for “exposure” do not mean that all animals will be harassed by the sound source. See UTIG's application for more information on estimating “exposures” and “takes” of marine mammals during the seismic operations. No explanation or justification for the statement “whales do not sit still and therefore do not get the full dose of sound on every shot” was provided and it is unclear how CRE expects NMFS to factor it in, therefore, NMFS cannot address this statement at this time. *CRE Comment:* The CRE White Paper recommends that the final IHA issued to UTIG for the proposed operations should regulate the 180 dB at 500 m (1,640 ft) unless and until other levels are shown DQA compliant and necessary. These standards have been consistently applied in the Gulf of Mexico

(GOM)and elsewhere without harm to marine mammals. *Response:* Consistent with CRE's comment, NMFS is using the 180 dB isopleth to estimate take of cetaceans (and the 190 dB isopleth for pinnipeds) by Level A harassment and to determine a trigger for implementing mitigation, in regards to non-explosive sounds. *CRE Comment:* The CRE White Paper recommends that the final IHA issued to UTIG for the proposed operations should require passive acoustic monitoring (“PAM”) if and when PAM is demonstrated to be accurate and reliable after public comment on the issue. *Response:* In regard to the use of PAM, UTIG does not propose to use PAM for this seismic research activity on the *Thompson* as the safety zones for marine mammals are fairly small and easily visible to MMVO's. Still, it remains difficult to locate a marine mammal based solely upon its call and determining whether or not the animals is inside the safety zone. The use of PAM systems may be proposed to be used by an IHA or LOA applicant to assist in the detection and monitoring of vocalizing marine mammals in the study area of the seismic vessel due to distance of safety zones or viewing conditions (i.e., inclement weather and/or sea state conditions, or night-time). However, prior to allowing use of PAM under an IHA, the applicant would be required to validate its effectiveness for detecting those marine mammals expected to be encountered during the activity. Also, NMFS is currently developing guidelines for PAM systems. *CRE Comment:* The CRE encourages NMFS to regulate seismics in the GOM and elsewhere through the promulgation of five-year rules. NMFS is urged to follow the Tier II recommendations of the CRE White Paper when developing seismic rules and Tier I recommendations when issuing individual IHAs in the absence of seismic rules. *Response:* NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the issuance of five-year rules in a Letter of Authorization for seismic activities in the GOM. Also, NMFS will review and consider the recommendations stated in the CRE White Paper Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area Thirty-two marine mammal species, including 19 odontocete (dolphins and small and large toothed whales) species, seven mysticete (baleen whales) species, five pinniped species, and the sea otter, may occur or have been documented to occur in the marine waters off Oregon and Washington, excluding extralimital sightings or strandings (Table 1 here). Six of the species that may occur in the project area are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

(ESA)as Endangered, including sperm, humpback, blue, fin, sei, and North Pacific right whales. In addition, the southern resident killer whale stock is also listed as endangered, but is unlikely to be seen in the offshore waters of Oregon. The threatened northern sea otter is only known to occur in coastal waters and is not expected in coastal waters and is not expected in the project area (the sea otter is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Additional information regarding the status and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 30076, May 23, 2008) and may be found in UTIG's application. Species Habitat Abundance 1 Avg Density 4 Max Density 4 Number of Exposures Mysticetes North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) * Inshore, occasionally offshore N.A. 2 0 0 0 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) * Mainly nearshore waters and banks 1391 0.69 1.50 1 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Pelagic and coastal 1015 0.68 1.1 2 Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) * Primarily offshore, pelagic 56 0.13 0.5 0 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) * Continental slope, mostly pelagic 3279 0.95 1.3 1 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) * Pelagic and coastal 1744 0.19 0.4 1 Odontocetes Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) * Usually pelagic and deep seas 1233 1.39 3.4 2 Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Deep waters off the shelf 247 1.24 2.8 4 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Deep waters off the shelf N.A. 0 0 0 Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Pelagic 1884 0 0 0 Baird's beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) Pelagic 228 1.64 4.1 2 Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Slope, offshore 1247 3 0 0 0 Mesoplodon sp (unidentified) Slope, offshore 1247 3 0.66 2.9 4 Hubb's beaked whale (Mesoplodon carlhubbsi) Slope, offshore 1247 3 0 0 0 Stejneger's beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) Slope, offshore 1247 3 0 0 0 Offshore bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Offshore, slope 5,065 0.04 0 0 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Off continental shelf 13,934 0.04 0.1 0 Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Shelf and pelagic, seamounts 449,846 14.14 35 49 Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) Offshore, slope 59,274 24.84 33.2 46 Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) Slope, offshore waters 20.362 19.39 26.7 37 Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Shelf, slope, seamounts 16,066 12.91 17.3 24 False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) Pelagic, occasionally inshore N.A. 0 0 0 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Widely distributed 466 (offshore) 1.62 2.7 4 Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) Mostly pelagic, high-relief topography 304 0 0 0 Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Coastal and inland waters 37,745 (OR/WA) 0 0 0 Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) Shelf, slope, offshore 99,517 150.17 250.9 349 Pinniped s Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) Pelagic, offshore 721,935 2 10 100 139 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) Coastal, shelf 237,000-244,000 N.A. N.A. 0 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) * Coastal, shelf 47,885(Eastern U.S.) 6 N.A. 1 Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) Coastal 24,732 (OR/WA) 4 N.A. 0 Northern elephant seal (Mirounga ngustirostris) Coastal, pelagic when migrating 101,000

(CA)N.A. N.A. 0 Table 1. Species expected to be encountered (and potentially harassed) and their densities in the survey area during UTIG=s NE Pacific Ocean cruise. The far right column indicates the number of exposures expected under the IHA. N.A. B Data not available or species status was not assessed. * Species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 1 Abundance given for U.S., Eastern North Pacific, or California/Oregon/Washington Stock, whichever is included in the 2005 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta *et al.* 2006), unless otherwise stated. 2 Angliss and Outlaw (2005). 3 All mesoplodont whales 4 Density is #/1000 km 2 Potential Effects on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Gordon *et al.* , 2004). To avoid injury, NMFS has determined that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Given the small size of the GI guns (two 40-60 in 3 GI gun) planned for the present project and the required mitigation and monitoring measures, effects are anticipated to be considerably less than would be the case with a large array of airguns. It is very unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or, especially, permanent hearing impairment or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances. The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 30076, May 23, 2008) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix A

(e)of UTIG's application. The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the potential effects of the multibeam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler. Because of the shape of the beams and the power of the multibeam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to the multibeam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 30076, May 23, 2008) included an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take estimates. Additional information was included in UTIG's application. All anticipated “takes by harassment” authorized by this IHA are Level B harassment only, involving temporary changes in behavior. Take calculations were based on maximum exposure estimates (based on maximum density estimates) as opposed to best estimates and are based on the 160-dB isopleth of a larger array of airguns. Given these considerations, the predicted number of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB may be somewhat overestimated.Extensive systematic aircraft- and ship-based surveys have been conducted for marine mammals offshore of Oregon and Washington (Bonnell *et al.* , 1992; Green *et al.* , 1992, 1993; Barlow, 1997, 2003; Barlow and Taylor, 2001; Calambokidis and Barlow, 2004; Barlow and Forney, 2007). Some of the most comprehensive and recent density data available for cetacean species off slope and offshore waters of Oregon are from the 1996 and 2001 NMFS SWFSC “ORCAWALE” ship surveys as synthesized by Barlow (2003). The surveys were conducted from late July to early November

(1996)or early December (2001). They were conducted up to approximately 556 km (346 mi) offshore from Oregon and Washington. In 2005, NMFS SWFSC “CSCAPE” ship survey assessed the abundance and distribution of marine mammals along the U.S. West Coast and California Current pelagic ecosystem. Systematic, offshore, at-sea survey data for pinnipeds are more limited. The most comprehensive such studies are reported by Bonnell *et al.*

(1992)and Green *et al.*

(1993)based on systematic aerial surveys conducted in 1989 1990 and 1992, primarily from coastal to slope waters with some offshore effort as well. Ten species of odontocete whales, four species of mysticete whale, and two species of pinnipeds are expected to be harassed. Since the take estimates authorized in this IHA are no more than 0.02 percent of any cetacean species and no more than 0.0002 percent of any pinniped species found along or offshore of the Oregon coast, NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these species and stocks are both small relative to the worldwide abundance and population of these affected species. Table 2 (see below) outlines the species, estimated stock population (minimum and best), and estimated percentage of the stock exposed to seismic impulses in the project area. Additional information regarding the status, abundance, and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in Table 1 (see above), the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 30076, May 23, 2008) and may be found in UTIG's application. Species Estimated Min. Pop'n of Stock Estimated Best Pop'n of Stock % of Stock Pop'n Exposed to Sound Levels > 160 dB Mysticetes North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) * N.A. N.A. 0 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) * 1,158 1,391 0.0009 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 544 898 0.004 Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) * 27 43 0 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) * 2,541 3,279 0.0008 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) * 1,005 1,186 0.001 Odontocetes Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) * 1,719 2,265 0.001 Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) N.A. 247 0.02 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) N.A. N.A. 0 Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) 1,234 2,171 0 Baird's beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) 203 313 0.007 Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) N.A. N.A. 0 Mesoplodon sp (unidentified) 576 1,024 0.004 Hubb's beaked whale (Mesoplodon carlhubbsi) N.A. N.A. 0 Stejneger's beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) N.A. N.A. 0 Offshore bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 2,295 3,257 0 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) 9,165 13,934 0 Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 392,687 487,622 0.0001 Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 20,441 25,233 0.002 Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) 16,417 20,362 0.002 Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) 9,947 12,093 0.002 False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) N.A. N.A. 0 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) 331 422 0.01 Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) 123 245 0 Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 27,705 37,745 0 Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) 43,425 57,549 0.008 Pinnipeds Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) 709,881 721,935 0.0002 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) 141,842 238,000 0 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) * 44,584 54,989 0.00002 Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) 22,380 24,732 0 Northern elephant seal (Mirounga ngustirostris) 74,913 124,000 0 Table 2. Species expected to be encountered (and potentially harassed) during UTIG=s NE Pacific Ocean cruise. The far right column indicates the percentage of stock exposed to sound levels greater than or equal 160 dB. * Species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Potential Effects on Habitat A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 30076, May 23, 2008). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA and the nature of the activities (small airgun array and limited duration), the authorized operations are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Monitoring Vessel-based marine mammal visual observers (MMVOs) will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during all daytime GI gun operations and during start-ups of the gun at night. MMVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of GI gun operations. When feasible, MMVOs will also make observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior. Based on MMVO observations, the airgun will be shut down when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated exclusion zone (EZ; safety radius). The EZ is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or other physical effects. MMVOs will be appointed by the academic institution conducting the research cruise, with NMFS Office of Protected Resources concurrence. At least one MMVO will monitor the EZ during daytime GI gun operations and any nighttime startups. MMVOs will normally work in shifts of 4 hours duration or less. The vessel crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals. The *Thompson* is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. Two locations are likely as observation stations onboard the *Thompson* . At one station on the bridge, the eye level will be approximately 13.8 m (45.3 ft) above sea level and the location will offer a good view around the vessel (approximately 310 degrees for one observer and a full 360 degrees when two observers are stationed at different vantage points). A second observation site is the 03 deck where the observer's eye level will be approximately 10.8 m (35.4 ft) above sea level. The 03 deck offers a view of 330 degrees for two observers. MMVOs will repair to the enclosed bridge during any inclement weather. Standard equipment for MMVOs will be 7 x 50 reticule binoculars and optical range finders. At night, night-vision equipment will be available. Observers will be in wireless communication with ship officers on the bridge and scientists in the ship's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or GI guns shut down. MMVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document any apparent disturbance reactions. Data will be used to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. It will also provide the information needed to order a shutdown of the GI guns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:

(1)Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the GI guns or seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.

(2)Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under

(2)will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables. All mammal observations and airgun shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data accuracy will be verified by the MMVOs at sea, and preliminary reports will be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the operating institution's shore facility and to NSF weekly or more frequently. MMVO observations will provide the following information:

(1)The basis for decisions about shutting down the GI guns.

(2)Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially “taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.

(3)Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.

(4)Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Mitigation Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey have been developed and refined during previous SIO and L-DEO seismic studies and associated EAs, IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the procedures required by past IHAs for other SIO and L-DEO projects. The measures are described in detail below. The number of individual animals expected to be approached closely during the proposed activity will be small in relation to regional population sizes. With the proposed monitoring and shut-down provisions (see below), any effects on individuals are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbance and will have only negligible impacts on the species and stocks. Mitigation measures that will be adopted will include:

(1)vessel speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements,

(2)GI guns shut down,

(3)GI guns ramp up, and

(4)minimizing approach to slopes and submarine canyons, if possible, because of sensitivity of beaked whales. Another standard mitigation measure airgun array power down is not possible because only two, low-volume GI guns will be used for the surveys. *Speed or Course Alteration* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter it based on relative movement of the vessel and the animal, then if safety and scientific objectives allow, the vessel speed and/or direct course will be adjusted to minimize the likelihood of the animal entering the EZ. Major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long seismic streamers and large source arrays but are possible in this case because only two GI guns and a short (12-m, 39.4-ft) P-Cable streamer system will be used. If the animal appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shut down of the airgun. *Shut-down Procedures* - If a marine mammal is within or about to enter the EZ for the two GI guns, it will be shut down immediately. Following a shut down, GI gun activity will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the EZ for the full array. The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it:

(1)is visually observed to have left the EZ;

(2)has not been seen within the EZ for 10 minutes in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or

(3)has not been seen within the EZ for 15 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales. *Ramp-up Procedures* - If no marine mammals have been observed while undertaking previously mentioned monitoring and mitigation measures, the airgun array may be ramped-up at no greater than 1 GI-gun per 5-minute interval or approximately 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-ups shall occur at the commencement of seismic operations, and, anytime after the airgun array has been shut down for more than 4 minutes. *Minimize Approach to Slopes and Submarine Canyons* - Although sensitivity of beaked whales to airguns is not known, they appear to be sensitive to other sound sources (mid-frequency sonar; see UTIG's application). Beaked whales tend to concentrate in continental slope areas and in areas where there are submarine canyons. Avoidance of airgun operations over or near submarine canyons has become a standard mitigation measure. Reporting A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. ESA Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the NSF has consulted formally with NMFS for this action since take of listed species is anticipated and authorized. NMFS has also formally consulted internally pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) for this activity. NMFS Section 7 biologists issued a Biological Opinion, which concluded that the endangered humpback, blue, fin, and sperm whales, and the threatened eastern population of Steller sea lion are not likely to be jeopardized by the proposed seismic survey. Other endangered and threatened cetacean species were also considered by risk that individuals of these species would be adversely affected is reduced to discountable levels because of the:

(1)type and short time frame of the proposed activity (single airgun source with nominal source level (peak to peak) of 237 dB re 1 μPa executed for a short period of time (3 survey sites, no more than a total of approximately 150 hours of seismic activity, during a three week period);

(2)unlikelihood of encountering listed species in the action area during the time of the proposed project; and/or

(3)monitoring and minimization measures to be implemented as part of the proposed project. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, September 2007. NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for the issuance of the IHA. NMFS has also conducted a separate NEPA analysis and prepared a Supplemental EA prior to the issuance of the IHA. Determinations NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of seventeen species of marine mammals. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this action. This determination is supported by:

(1)the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;

(2)the fact that cetaceans would have to be closer than either 104 m (341 ft) in intermediate depths or 69 m (226 ft) in deep water (180 dB) and pinnipeds would have to be closer than 30 m (98.4 ft) in intermediate depths or 20 m (65.6) in deep water from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS or PTS (180 dB for cetaceans and 190 dB for pinnipeds); and

(3)the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the required mitigation measures. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, less than a percent of any of the estimated population sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UTIG for conducting a low-energy seismic survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean during June-July, 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: July 17, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16845 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2008-0024] Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Applicants and registered patent practitioners are reminded that the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications. Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Carone, Supervisory Patent Examiner, Technology Center 3600, by telephone at

(571)272-6873. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO has become aware that a number of law firms or service provider companies located in foreign countries are sending solicitations to U.S. registered patent practitioners offering their services in connection with the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States. Applicants and registered patent practitioners are reminded that the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the USPTO, such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications. Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances. *See* MPEP § 140 (8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006). The BIS has promulgated the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)governing exports of dual-use commodities, software, and technology, including technical data, which are codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Furthermore, if the invention was made in the United States, technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, can only be exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign patent application, after compliance with the EAR or following the appropriate USPTO foreign filing license procedure. *See* 37 CFR 5.11(c). A foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States. The Commissioner for Patents has been delegated the authority for controlling exports of technology for purposes of the filing of patent applications in foreign countries. *See* 15 CFR 734.3(b)(1)(v) and 734.10(b) and 35 U.S.C. 184. The USPTO grants foreign filing licenses in accordance with USPTO regulations. *See* 37 CFR Part 5. The scope of a foreign filing license granted by the USPTO is set forth in 37 CFR 5.15. Applicants and registered patent practitioners are also advised that foreign filing licenses (for the filing of a patent application in a foreign country) do not authorize the export of any technology that is not specifically submitted to the USPTO as part of a U.S. patent application or a petition for a foreign filing license. For example, the USPTO has received short abstracts, PowerPoint® slides and even titles of inventions as the disclosure for which a foreign filing license is requested. Although the USPTO will usually process such requests, any foreign filing license granted under 37 CFR 5.15(a) or 5.15(b) on such short description may not authorize filing abroad the ultimate resulting patent applications and may not authorize any additional material added after the initial foreign filing license request. Such additional material that was not submitted to the USPTO for its review may be deemed to have altered “the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require such application to be made available for inspection under such section 181.” *See* 35 U.S.C. 184. The USPTO has established a Licensing and Review Web page on its Web site that includes frequently asked questions regarding foreign filing licenses and related matters. This Web page is located at *http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/lr/licensing_review.htm* . This notice does not change existing law or regulations. Thus, while the notice is effective on July 23, 2008, this notice does not excuse or otherwise affect the legal consequence of a failure to comply with existing law or regulations that occurred prior to July 23, 2008. Information regarding the EAR may be obtained from the BIS Web site at *http://www.bis.doc.gov.* Questions regarding the EAR should be directed to the BIS's Outreach and Educational Services Division at

(202)482-4811. Dated: July 16, 2008. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E8-16830 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement) July 18, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2008. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)has determined that certain twill fabrics, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3651. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE:** http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf. Reference number: 80.2008.06.18.Fabric.GovofDominican Republic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006). BACKGROUND: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act. The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On March 21, 2007, CITA published final procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (72 FR 13256). On June 18, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a commercial availability request from the Government of the Dominican Republic for certain twill fabrics, of the specifications detailed below. On June 19, 2008, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted request. In its notification, CITA advised that interested entities objecting to the request may provide a response, no later than July 2, 2008, advising CITA of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product as described in the request. CITA also notified interested parties that that any rebuttals to responses must be submitted to CITA by July 9, 2008. No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request or its ability to supply the subject product. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity submitted a response objecting to the request or expressing an ability to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabrics to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. The subject fabric has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been published on-line. Specifications: Certain Twill Fabrics HTS: 5212.23.6060 Fiber Content: 55% cotton/45% linen Average Yarn Number: Metric: 18/1 - 19/1; 18/1 - 19/1 English: 11/1; 11/1 Weave: Twill Weight: Metric: 231-243 gm/sq. m. English: 6.9 - 7.2 oz/sq. yd. Width: Metric: 141-148 cm English: 56-58 inches Finish: Piece dyed R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-16856 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement) July 18, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2008. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)has determined that certain corduroy fabrics, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3651. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE:** http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf. Reference number: 79.2008.06.18.Fabric.GovofDominican Republic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006). BACKGROUND: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act. The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On March 21, 2007, CITA published final procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (72 FR 13256). On June 18, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a commercial availability request from the Government of the Dominican Republic for certain corduroy fabrics, of the specifications detailed below. On June 19, 2008, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted request. In its notification, CITA advised that interested entities objecting to the request may provide a response, no later than July 2, 2008, advising CITA of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product as described in the request. CITA also notified interested parties that that any rebuttals to responses must be submitted to CITA by July 9, 2008. No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity submitted a response objecting to the request or expressing an ability to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabrics to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. The subject fabric has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been published on-line. Specifications: Certain Corduroy Fabrics HTS: 5801.22.90 Fiber Content: 100% cotton Average Yarn Number: Metric: 20/1 - 21/1; 20/1 - 21/1; English: 12/1; 12/1; Thread Count: Metric: 18-19 warp ends/ 57-60 filling picks per cm. English: 47-49 warp ends/144-152 filling picks per inch Weave: Corduroy 3.1 wales/cm. (8 wales per inch). Weight: Metric: 393-413 gm/sq. m. English: 11.6-12.2 oz/sq. yd. Width: Metric: 139-146 cm English: 55-57 inches Finish: Piece dyed R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-16888 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement) July 18, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2008. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(202)482-3651. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE:** http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf. Reference number: 78.2008.06.18.Fabric.GovofDominican Republic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006). BACKGROUND: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act. The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On March 21, 2007, CITA published final procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (72 FR 13256). On June 18, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a commercial availability request from the Government of the Dominican Republic for certain corduroy fabrics, of the specifications detailed below. On June 19, 2008, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted request. In its notification, CITA advised that interested entities objecting to the request may provide a response, no later than July 2, 2008, advising CITA of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product as described in the request. CITA also notified interested parties that that any rebuttals to responses must be submitted to CITA by July 9, 2008. No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity submitted a response objecting to the request or expressing an ability to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabrics to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. The subject fabric has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been published on-line. Specifications: Certain Corduroy Fabrics HTS: 5801.22.90 Fiber Content: 100% cotton Average Yarn Number: Metric: 20/1 - 21/1; 20/1 - 21/1; English: 12/1; 12/1; Thread Count: Metric: 25-26 warp ends/ 49-52 filling picks per cm. English: 62-66 warp ends/125-131 filling picks per inch Weave: Corduroy 4.3 wales/cm. (11 wales per inch). Weight: Metric: 297-313 gm/sq. m. English: 8.8 - 9.2 oz/sq. yd. Width: Metric: 139-146 cm English: 55-57 inches Finish: Piece dyed R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-16890 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement) July 18, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2008. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(202)482-3651. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE:** http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf. Reference number: 81.2008.06.18.Fabric.GovofDominican Republic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006). BACKGROUND: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act. The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On March 21, 2007, CITA published final procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (72 FR 13256). On June 18, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a commercial availability request from the Government of the Dominican Republic for certain twill fabrics, of the specifications detailed below. On June 19, 2008, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted request. In its notification, CITA advised that interested entities objecting to the request may provide a response, no later than July 2, 2008, advising CITA of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product by providing an offer to supply the subject product as described in the request. CITA also notified interested parties that that any rebuttals to responses must be submitted to CITA by July 9, 2008. No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request and its ability to supply the subject product. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity submitted a response objecting to the request or expressing an ability to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabrics to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. The subject fabric has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been published on-line. Specifications: Certain Twill Fabrics HTS: 5212.23.6060 Fiber Content: 55% cotton/45% linen Average Yarn Number: Metric: 20/1 - 21/1; 18/1 - 19/1 English: 12/1; 11/1 Thread Count: Metric: 28-29 warp ends/ 18-19 filling picks per cm. English: 70-74 warp ends/47-49 filling picks per inch Weave: Twill Weight: Metric: 268-281 gm/sq. m. English: 7.9 - 8.3 oz/sq. yd. Width: Metric: 139-146 cm English: 55-57 inches Finish: Piece dyed R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-16891 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Closed 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. paragraph 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR paragraph 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following Federal Advisory Committee meetings of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review Advisory Committee. DATES: August 4, 2008 (8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.), August 5, 2008 (8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.) and August 6, 2008 (8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.). ADDRESSES: August 4: White House; August 5 and 6: Pentagon Conference Center M3. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William L. Jones,

(703)681-8681, U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purposes of the Meetings:* To provide an overview of Nuclear Command and Control System personnel security and crisis management requirements, nuclear weapons inspection processes, physical security threat assessments and performance measures, and security and vulnerability modeling and assessment tools. Agenda Time Topic Presenter August 4, 2008 8:30 a.m. Administrative Remarks CAPT Budney, USN (NSS). 9 a.m. Personnel Reliability Program

(PRP)DoD. 9:30 a.m. Human Reliability Program

(HRP)NNSA. 10 a.m. Human Reliability Program NSA. 10:30 a.m. Yankee White WHMO. 10:45 a.m. Break 11 a.m. Nuclear Personnel Expertise issues ADM

(Ret)Chiles. 11:30 a.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m. Crisis Management System

(CMS)WHSR or DISA. 1:30 p.m. Tour PEOC, WHSR (include capability briefings) PEOC & WHSR. 3:30 p.m. Adjourn. August 5, 2008 8:30 a.m. Administrative Remarks CAPT Budney, USN (NSS). 8:45 a.m. NUWEX Program OATSD(NCB)/NM. 9:15 a.m. DOE Inspection Oversight Processes and Results NNSA. 9:45 a.m. Air Force Operational Readiness and Technical Inspection Programs (processes, frequencies, issues) SAF/IG. 10:15 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. Navy Operational and Technical Inspection Programs (processes, frequencies, results/trends, issues) Navy Staff, ComSubFor. 11 a.m. DoD Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspections (processes, frequencies, results/trends, issues) DTRA. 11:30 a.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m. Postulated/Design Basis Threat DOE. 1 p.m. Nuclear Security Threat Capabilities Assessment OATSD(NCB)/NM. 1:30 p.m. Common Nuclear Threat Characterization ODNI. 2 p.m. MIGHTY GUARDIAN Series (include MG results and corrective actions, Grand Forks Engineering Study) AFSPC. 2:30 p.m. Break 2:45 p.m. Matrix Briefing Mr. Brad Mickelsen. 3:30 p.m. Exec Session 4:30 p.m. Adjourn. August 6, 2008 8:30 a.m. Administrative Remarks CAPT Budney USN (NSS). 8:45 a.m. Security Models (JCATS, DANTE) SNL Rep. 9:30 a.m. Red Team Brief DTRA/SRF. 10 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m. Balanced Survivability Assessment Brief DTRA/SRF. 11 a.m. DOE Security Roadmap, Modeling and Risk Assessment NNSA. 11:45 a.m. Lunch TBD. 12:30 p.m. Office of Secure Transport NNSA. 1 p.m. DoD Security Roadmap, Modeling and Risk Assessment ATSD(NCB)/NM. 13 p.m. AF Action Plan/Security Roadmap A3Sxx/A7xx. 2:30 p.m. Navy Action Plan/Security Roadmap SSPO. 2:45 p.m. Break 3 p.m. Recapture/Recovery (requirements, responsibilities, capabilities, exercises) ATSD(NCB)/NM NNSA. FBI. DHS. DOS. 4:30 p.m. Adjourn. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. paragraph 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR paragraph 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that these meetings shall be closed to the public. The Director, U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff, in consultation with his General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the committee's meetings will be closed to the public because they will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by section 5 U.S.C. paragraph 552b(c)(1). *Committee's Designated Federal Officer:* Mr. William L. Jones,

(703)681-8681, U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041. *William.jones@nss.pentagon.mil.* Pursuant to 41 CFR paragraphs 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 at any time to the Nuclear Command and Control System Federal Advisory Committee about its mission and functions. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Nuclear Command and Control System Federal Advisory Committee. He will ensure that written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Written statements may also be submitted in response to the stated agenda of planned committee meetings. Statements submitted in response to this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after that date may not be provided or considered by the Committee until its next meeting. All submissions provided before that date will be presented to the committee members before the meeting that is subject of this notice. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer is listed above. Dated: July 15, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16907 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2008-OS-0081] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice for a new system of records. SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is adding a new system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on August 22, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at

(703)588-2386. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 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 systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on July 14, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Oversight and 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 15, 2008. Patricia Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DHRA 05 DoD SYSTEM NAME: Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) Survey Database. SYSTEM LOCATION: Equifax Database Services, Inc., 500 Edgewater Drive, Suite 525, Wakefield, MA 01880-6222. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals aged 16 through maximum recruiting age; Selective Service System registrants; individuals who have taken the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test; current military personnel who are on Active Duty or in the Reserves; prior service individuals who still have remaining Military Service Obligation (commonly known as the Individual Ready Reserve or IRR); individuals who are in the process of enlisting or enrolled in ROTC (commonly known as the Military Entrance Program Command (MEPCOM) applicant file); and individuals who have asked to be removed from consideration as a participant in any future JAMRS survey. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Individual's name, gender, mailing address, date of birth, information source code. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 10 U.S.C. 503(a), Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; and 10 U.S.C. 2358, Research and development projects. PURPOSE(S): To compile names of individuals aged 16 through maximum recruiting age to create a mailing frame from which to conduct surveys. These surveys will be conducted multiple times per year and each survey will be designed so that appropriate levels of precision can be achieved for inferences to be made at various geographic levels. The system also provides JAMRS with the ability to remove the names of individuals who are current/former members of, or are enlisting in, the Armed Forces, and individuals who have asked to be removed from consideration as a participant in any future JAMRS survey. 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's Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of OSD's compilation of systems of records notices do not apply to this system except: To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department, in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent. To the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Electronic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: Individual's full name, address, and date of birth. SAFEGUARDS: Access to information in the database is highly restricted and limited to those that require the records in the performance of their official duties. The database utilizes a layered approach of overlapping controls, monitoring and authentication to ensure overall security of the data, network and system resources. Sophisticated physical security, perimeter security (firewall, intrusion prevention), access control, authentication, encryption, data transfer, and monitoring solutions prevent unauthorized access from internal and external sources. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: If selected for a survey: Records will be retained for one year after the completion of the survey. If not selected for a survey, the record will be deleted after other records have been selected. Opt-outs will be deleted when the individual is no longer eligible for recruiting. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Program Manager, Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS), 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite #200, Arlington, VA 22203-1613. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS), Survey Project Officer, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite #200, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1613. Requests must include the requester's name, current address, and be signed. In addition, the name and ID number of this system of records notice. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written requests to the OSD FOIA Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-1155. Requests must include the requester's name, current address, and be signed. In addition, the name and ID number of this system of records notice. Note 1: Individuals, who are 15 1/2 years old or older, or parents or legal guardians acting on behalf of individuals who are between the ages of 15 1/2 and 18 years old, seeking to have their name or the name of their child or ward, as well as other identifying data, removed from this system of records (or removed in the future when such information is obtained), should address written Opt-Out requests to Joint Advertising, Marketing Research & Studies (JAMRS), ATTN: Survey Project Officer, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite #200, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1613. Such requests must contain the full name, date of birth, and current address of the individual. Note 2: Opt-Out requests will be honored until the individual is no longer eligible for recruitment. However, because opt-out screening is based, in part, on the current address of the individual, any change in address will require the submission of a new opt-out request with the new address. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: State Department of Motor Vehicle offices; commercial information brokers/vendors; the Selective Service System; the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC); the United States Military Entrance Processing Command for individuals who have taken the ASVAB test; and individuals who have submitted written “opt-out” requests. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E8-16733 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction Notice. SUMMARY: On July 16, 2008, the Department of Education published a comment period notice in the **Federal Register** (Page 40854, Column 1) for the information collection, “Study of Pell Grant Recipients Who Transfer Among Eligible Institutions.” This notice hereby corrects the invitation for comment period for interested persons to July 31, 2008. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Dated: July 17, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. [FR Doc. E8-16817 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 22, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

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

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

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

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

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

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

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

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

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

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

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: July 18, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Mapping the Adopted Core Curriculum in the Mid Atlantic Region. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 1,496. Burden Hours: 748. *Abstract:* It is important to identify adopted local educational agencies

(LEA)curricula in language arts/literacy, mathematics and science to map the landscape of the Mid-Atlantic region and to inform policy and practice data-driven decision-making. After collecting information from interviews with key LEA staff from each Regional Educational Laboratory

(REL)Mid-Atlantic district, the lab will produce a foundational database from which to analyze trends and strategically develop appropriate research and evaluation agendas. A descriptive report summarizing the adopted K-12 curricula in the region and a user-friendly on-line interface will also be developed. 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 3768. 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. E8-16864 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 22, 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 18, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Annual Progress Reporting Form for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Program. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 73. Burden Hours: 1,022. *Abstract:* This data collection will be conducted annually to obtain program and performance information from the AIVRS grantees on their project activities. The information collected will assist federal Rehabilitation Services Administration

(RSA)staff in responding to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Data will primarily be collected through an Internet form. 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 3686. 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. E8-16865 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education Overview Information; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, FIPSE-Special Focus Competition: The U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 84.116S. DATES: *Applications Available:* July 23, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 22, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* To provide grants that demonstrate partnerships between Russian and American institutions of higher education

(IHEs)that contribute to the development and promotion of educational opportunities between the two nations, particularly in the areas of mutual foreign language learning and advancement of education in science, technology, and the humanities. Russian institutions will apply to The Russian Ministry of Education and Science for funding under a separate but parallel competition. *Priority:* Under this competition, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority. *Invitational Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. This priority is designed to support the formation of educational consortia of American and Russian IHEs to encourage mutual socio-cultural-linguistic cooperation; the coordination of joint development of curricula, educational materials, and other types of educational and methodological activities; and the conduct of related joint educational research. The invitational priority is issued in cooperation with the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. These awards support only the participation of faculty and students in partnership arrangements with American institutions. Applicants must describe the capacity of the institution to contribute to and benefit from a collaborative project with a Russian institution to advance foreign language and cultural understanding as well as educational research and opportunities in one of the following three areas:

(1)Engineering.

(2)Economics.

(3)Application of Information Technology

(IT)for the Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages. Russian institutions eligible to form a consortium with an American IHE and to submit a joint proposal have been selected by the Russian Federation through the “Development of Higher Education” competition that has been conducted by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science in Russia prior to this competition. As a result of this Russian competition, the Russian Federation has identified the following Russian institutions in each of the three disciplines identified above, as being eligible for participation in this competition:

(1)Engineering—Bauman Moscow State Technical University. *POC:* Gennadiy Petrovich Pavlikhin, Vice-Rector. *Tel:* 7-499-261-40-55, *e-mail: irina@interd.bmstu.ru.*

(2)Economics—State University of Higher Economics. *POC:* Boris Valeryevich Zhelezov, Head, Department of International Academic Mobility. *Tel:* 7-495-621-32-20, *e-mail: bzhelezov@gmail.com.*

(3)Application of Information Technology

(IT)for the Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages—Russian People's Friendship University. *POC:* Nur Serikovich Kirabayev, Vice-Rector. *Tel:* 7-495-952-52-26, *e-mail: kirabaev@gmail.com.* These Russian institutions, if part of a U.S.-Russian consortium, will receive separate but parallel funding from the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $600,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $150,000-$250,000 for the first year of the award. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $400,000 for the two-year duration of grant. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $270,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Estimated Number of Awards:* 3. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 24 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* IHEs or combinations of IHEs and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.Grants.gov* . To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, PO Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. *Fax:*

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.116S. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person listed under *Alternative Format* in Section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to the equivalent of no more than 20 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5′ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or, if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* July 23, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 22, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR part 74. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education, CFDA Number 84.116S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA Number. Do not include the CFDA Number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.116, not 84.116S). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include

(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);

(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf).* You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition, you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award Number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time; or, if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Krish Mathur, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6155, Washington, DC 20006-8544. *FAX* :

(202)502-7877. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.116S), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.116S), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.116S), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA Number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for evaluating the applications for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR and are listed in the application package. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Department will use the following measures to assess the performance of the program:

(a)The percentage of FIPSE grantees reporting project dissemination to others.

(b)The percentage of FIPSE projects reporting institutionalization on their home campuses. If funded, you will be asked to collect and report data on these measures in your project's annual performance report (EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.590). Applicants are also advised to consider these two measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of the proposed project because of their importance in the application review process. Collection of data on these measures should be part of the project evaluation plan, along with any measures of progress on goals and objectives that are specific to your project. VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krish Mathur, FIPSE—Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6155, Washington, DC 20006-8544. *Telephone:*

(202)502-7512 or by *e-mail: krish.mathur@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

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

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: July 17, 2008. Sara Martinez Tucker, Under Secretary of Education. [FR Doc. E8-16840 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Migrant Education Coordination Program—Migrant Student Information Exchange

(MSIX)State Data Quality Grants AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final requirements. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education establishes the final requirements for Migrant Student Information Exchange

(MSIX)State Data Quality grants funded under section 1308(b) of Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Subject to the availability of funds in any fiscal year, the Department will use the requirements to make annual grant awards by formula, beginning in FY 2008, to provide additional resources to State educational agencies

(SEAs)in order to assist them and their local operating agencies

(LOAs)in implementing the interstate electronic exchange of migrant children's records through the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX). DATES: *Effective Date:* These requirements are effective August 22, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alejandra Vélez-Paschke, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, room 3E249, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone:

(202)260-2834 or via Internet: *MsixTeam@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The Migrant Education Program (MEP), authorized in Title I, Part C, of the ESEA, is a State-operated, formula grant program under which SEAs receive funds to help improve the academic achievement of migratory children who reside in their States. Under section 1304(b)(3) of the ESEA, SEAs receiving MEP funds have a responsibility to carry out activities that promote the interstate and intrastate coordination of services for migratory children. This responsibility includes carrying out activities that provide for educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school records, including health information, for migratory children whether or not they move during the regular school year. Section 1308(b) of the ESEA requires, among other things, that the Department

(1)Assist States in developing methods for the electronic transfer of migrant student records,

(2)ensure the linkage of State electronic records-exchange systems, and

(3)establish the minimum data elements

(MDEs)that States must collect and maintain in their migrant student databases for the purpose of electronically exchanging health and educational records on migrant children. To meet these statutory responsibilities, on September 28, 2007, the Department established the MSIX. When fully operational, the MSIX will allow all States participating in the MEP (and all LOAs in those States) to share an established set of MDEs on their migrant children with any State and LOA in which a migrant child enrolls by electronically linking the States' existing migrant student databases. On November 27, 2007, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approved an information collection package (1810-0683) that establishes 66 MDEs. We published a notice of proposed requirements for this program in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2008 (73 FR 17341). The notice proposed that the Department establish a grant program under which, subject to the availability of funds in any fiscal year, the Department would make annual grant awards by formula beginning in FY 2008 to SEAs in order to provide additional resources to assist them and their LOAs in implementing the interstate exchange of migrant children's records electronically through MSIX. The notice of proposed requirements included a discussion of how SEAs could use these supplemental funds and a proposed formula for distributing available money to the SEAs that requested this assistance. Except for some minor editorial and technical changes, there are two differences between the proposed requirements identified in that notice and the final requirements announced in this notice. These changes are explained in the following *Analysis of Comments and Changes* . Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed requirements, one party submitted comments on the proposed requirements. An analysis of the comments follows. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes—and suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the Department allow States that have already shown that they have met the MDE requirements and implemented MSIX to use the MSIX State Data Quality Grant funds for instructional services for migrant students under Title I, Part C. *Discussion:* The Department appreciates the commenter's concerns. However, the Department proposed this new program in response to specific concerns expressed by representatives of many SEAs about the costs of connecting their State migrant information systems with MSIX and implementing related records exchange activities, and their strong desire for additional funds to help pay for these costs. Responding to this call for support, the Department proposed the MSIX State Data Quality Grants as a way to supplement SEA efforts to pay for expenses incurred by States in their efforts to link to and use the MSIX. The Department believes that the needs of States for this additional assistance is such that the entire $2 million that we proposed to set aside for MSIX-related activities should be devoted to this purpose. In this regard, as explained in the notice of proposed requirements (73 FR 17342), SEAs may use these funds for a wide variety of MSIX-related activities, both for the ongoing costs of maintaining records and for one-time costs incurred. Ongoing costs may include such activities as paying for additional data entry personnel hired to enter migrant student data into the State's migrant database, further MSIX training of new staff, and refresher training once live data are entered into the system. One-time costs may include the purchase of equipment, such as computers, to be used for entering migrant student data. The funds that are used for these MSIX-related activities will make MEP Basic Formula Grant funds, which otherwise would have been spent on MSIX-related activities, available for purposes of providing educational services to migrant children under Title I, Part C of the ESEA. Because the statement of Requirement 1 as proposed may not have clarified that funds may be used for any of a variety of activities only if the activities relate to the use of MSIX for transferring MDEs, we have clarified this point. *Change* : Requirement 1 is revised to clarify that SEAs may use MSIX State Data Quality grant funds for various activities only to the extent that these activities are related to the transfer of the MDEs to and through MSIX. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* In the course of our internal review of the proposed requirements, we determined that the following sentence, included in the notice of proposed requirements under the heading *Amount of the Grants* , should be included in Requirement 4 because it relates to the formula for determining an SEA's share of grant funds. If an SEA does not apply for these funds or does not receive a MEP Basic State formula grant in any given year, its share of grant funds would be distributed to the requesting SEAs on the basis of the formula established in the notice of final requirements. *Change:* We have revised Requirement 4 to include the following sentence: If an SEA does not apply for these funds or does not receive a MEP Basic State formula grant in any given year, its share of grant funds will be distributed to the requesting SEAs on the basis of the formula established in this notice of final requirements. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use these requirements, we invite applications through a separate document that will be sent to States directly. Requirements *Requirement 1* —In consultation with the LOAs and the State's parent advisory council, each SEA will determine how these funds will be used in the State. SEAs must use these funds only to help pay for additional costs that their agencies and the LOAs in their States may assume for various activities related to the transfer of the MDEs to and through MSIX. Examples of these activities include:

(a)Enhancements to the State's migrant or State student database to ensure the inclusion of the MDEs in accordance with MSIX data specifications;

(b)Staffing or information technology

(IT)services needed for the collection, data entry, and maintenance of the MDEs or the connectivity to MSIX;

(c)Development of manuals, procedures, pamphlets, or other materials that support the implementation of the State's records exchange program; and

(d)Support for activities directly related to staff training on the use of MSIX, including staff attendance and travel to MSIX meetings and workshops. *Requirement 2* —Only an SEA that receives an MEP Basic State Formula grant award is eligible to receive an MSIX State Data Quality grant. To receive an MSIX State Data Quality grant, an SEA must submit a letter, signed by the Chief State School Officer or his or her authorized representative,

(a)requesting an MSIX State Data Quality grant award, and

(b)providing an assurance that these funds will be used only for activities that comport with the requirements in this notice of final requirements. In each fiscal year for which sufficient section 1308 funds are available, the Department will announce the estimated amount of each grant award and invite SEAs to submit their letters of application on or before a date that the Department specifies. *Requirement 3* —These grant awards are subject to the financial reporting requirements in section 80.41 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 80.41). With regard to performance reporting, the Department does not apply the provisions contained in section 80.40(b) of EDGAR. Instead, the Department will use program monitoring conducted in conjunction with the overall MEP Basic State Formula Grant program as a means of obtaining information, including supporting documentation, on how the SEA and LOAs in the State used MSIX State Data Quality grant funds to support MSIX-related activities. Monitoring activities will examine progress relative to the MSIX efficiency measure, which assesses the percentage of migrant student records that are consolidated when school enrollment has occurred in more than one State. *Requirement 4* —Beginning in FY 2008 and in any subsequent fiscal year in which sufficient funds are available under section 1308, the Department will award these MSIX State Data Quality grants using the following formula: • 75 percent of the total amount available will be awarded in equal amounts to each SEA with a MEP Basic State Formula grant award; and • The remaining 25 percent of the funds will be awarded proportionally relative to the amount of each State's Basic MEP State Formula grant award amount made on July 1 of the fiscal year; except that • No SEA may receive an MSIX State Data Quality grant award that exceeds 20 percent of its MEP Basic State Formula grant award. If an SEA does not apply for these funds or does not receive a MEP Basic State formula grant in any given year, its share of grant funds will be distributed to the requesting SEAs on the basis of the formula established in this notice of final requirements. Amount of the Grants For FY 2008, the Department expects to award approximately $2 million for the MSIX State Data Quality grant awards. An appendix to this notice contains a table presenting the size of each State's FY 2008 award assuming that all eligible SEAs apply and that $2 million are available for FY 2008 awards. In subsequent fiscal years, the Department will inform the States of the total amount of funds available, if any, under this grant program. Executive Order 12866 This notice of final requirements has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the notice of final requirements are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of final requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the final requirements justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. We fully discussed the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed requirements. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA)The application procedure has been approved under OMB control number 1810-0683. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements This grant program is subject to the requirements established in this notice of final requirements and to the definitions used to determine the eligibility of a “migrant child” found in section 1309(2) of the ESEA and 34 CFR § 200.81. Consistent with the “Tydings Amendment” (section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act, and restated in section 76.709 of EDGAR), funds awarded under this program are available for obligation until September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which they are awarded. Because it is a formula grant program, receipt of funds also is subject to the requirements of parts 76 and 80 of EDGAR (34 CFR parts 76 and 80). Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

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

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.144, Migrant Education Coordination Program). Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398. Dated: July 18, 2008. Kerri L. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Appendix Note: The estimated size of awards is based on the amount of FY 2008 MEP Basic State Grant awards issued on July 1, 2008, and assumes that

(1)exactly $2 million will be available for FY 2008 MSIX State Data quality grant awards, and

(2)each SEA with a Migrant Education Program Basic Formula Grant requests an award. NATIONAL TOTALS $2,000,000 ALABAMA 33,039.00 ALASKA 40,025.00 ARIZONA 39,449.00 ARKANSAS 37,580.00 CALIFORNIA 216,509.00 COLORADO 40,577.00 CONNECTICUT 31,475.00 DELAWARE 30,437.00 DIST. COLUMBIA 0.00 Appendix ESTIMATED PROPOSED AWARD AMOUNTS FOR THE FY 2008 MSIX STATE DATA QUALITY GRANTS FLORIDA $63,523.00 GEORGIA 41,851.00 HAWAII 31,089.00 IDAHO 35,360.00 ILLINOIS 32,819.00 INDIANA 37,616.00 IOWA 32,460.00 KANSAS 47,023.00 KENTUCKY 40,555.00 LOUISIANA 33,549.00 MAINE 31,557.00 MARYLAND 30,773.00 MASSACHUSETTS 32,384.00 MICHIGAN 42,597.00 MINNESOTA 32,471.00 MISSISSIPPI 30,875.00 MISSOURI 32,241.00 MONTANA 31,404.00 NEBRASKA 37,541.00 NEVADA 30,331.00 NEW HAMPSHIRE 28,094.00 NEW JERSEY 32,998.00 NEW MEXICO 31,275.00 NEW YORK 43,935.00 NORTH CAROLINA 38,454.00 NORTH DAKOTA 30,326.00 OHIO 33,635.00 OKLAHOMA 31,519.00 OREGON 44,086.00 PENNSYLVANIA 43,389.00 RHODE ISLAND 13,374.00 SOUTH CAROLINA 30,790.00 SOUTH DAKOTA 31,202.00 TENNESSEE 30,782.00 TEXAS 114,584.00 UTAH 32,558.00 VERMONT 30,896.00 VIRGINIA 31,169.00 WASHINGTON 52,452.00 WEST VIRGINIA 16,147.00 WISCONSIN 30,905.00 WYOMING 30,320.00 PUERTO RICO 0.00 [FR Doc. E8-16857 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings July 17, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP00-70-019. *Applicants:* Algonquin Gas Transmission Company. *Description:* Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 effective 5/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-0139. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP05-422-028. *Applicants:* El Paso Natural Gas Company. *Description:* El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Second Revised Volume 1A *et al* . effective 5/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-0138. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-272-078. *Applicants:* Northern Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Northern Natural Gas Co submits Third Revised Sheet 66B.07 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 07/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-0140. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-444-000. *Applicants:* MGI Supply Ltd. *Description:* Petition of MGI Supply Ltd for Clarification or Waiver pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR Section 207 etc. *Filed Date:* 07/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080715-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-445-000. *Applicants:* Dauphin Island Gathering Partners. *Description:* Cash Out Activity Report. *Filed Date:* 07/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-5022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP08-406-002. *Applicants:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. *Description:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits a compliance filing to cancel Rate Schedules X-53, X-82, X-87, X-92 and X-101. *Filed Date:* 07/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080715-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP07-32-006. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits Substitute Fourtheenth Revised Sheet No. 20 *et al* . to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-0137. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP00-6-015. *Applicants:* Gulfstream Natural Gas Company, LLC. *Description:* Gulfstream Natural Gas Company, LLC submits Second Revised Sheets 5 and 6 to their FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 07/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080716-0141. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday, July 22, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr. Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16816 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0550; FRL-8375-3] FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review selected issues associated with the risk assessment process for pesticides with persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic characteristics. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 28 - 31, 2008, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, eastern time. *Comments* . The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted by October 14, 2008 and requests for oral comments be submitted by October 21, 2008. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after October 14, 2008 should contact the Designated Federal Official

(DFO)listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Nominations* . Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before August 4, 2008. *Special accommodations* . For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center - Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, Virginia 22202. *Comments* . Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0550, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* . Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0550. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* . All documents in the docket are listed in a docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in a docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for special accommodations* Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrta R. Christian, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)564-8498; fax number:

(202)564-8382; e-mail addresses: *christian.myrta@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. How May I Participate in this Meeting? You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0550 in the subject line on the first page of your request. 1. *Written comments* . The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES , no later than October 14, 2008, to provide the FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after October 14, 2008 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 30 copies for distribution to the FIFRA SAP. 2. *Oral comments* . The Agency encourages that each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than October 21, 2008, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of the FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP at the meeting. 3. *Seating at the meeting* . Seating at the meeting will be open and on a first-come basis. 4. *Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting* . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: toxicity, residue-based toxicity approaches, bioaccumulation, persistence, long-range transport, sediment dynamics and general risk assessment methodology. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before August 4, 2008. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency. The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 8 to 10 ad hoc scientists. FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at *http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap* or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* . II. Background A. Purpose of the FIFRA SAP The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the Scientific Advisory Panel on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Scientific Advisory Panel. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency. B. Public Meeting This Scientific Advisory Panel meeting will address selected scientific issues associated with assessing the potential ecological risks resulting from use of a pesticide active ingredient which has persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic

(PBT)characteristics. EPA will pose specific charge questions to the SAP on issues involving: • The range and combination of characteristics of persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity that should employ a modified approach to ecological risk assessment; • The need for changes to the conceptual model used to evaluate the potential ecological effects of pesticides with varying P and B characteristics; • Toxicity endpoints and methods OPP should consider when assessing pesticides with varying P and B characteristics; • Pathways of potential exposure that should be considered in assessing the ecological risks of a pesticide with varying P and B characteristics; • Data and model(s) appropriate for estimating and characterizing bioaccumulation and estimating steady and non-steady state pesticide residue concentrations in biota; • Data and model(s) appropriate for estimating and characterizing environmental fate in soil, water and sediment; andData and model(s) most appropriate for assessing exposure to biota through multiple pathways. Office of Pesticides Programs

(OPP)has recently completed ecological risk assessments on several pesticides with varying P and B characteristics. OPP will draw on information and analyses from these assessments to illustrate the evolving approach OPP is using to address selected issues and how differences across chemicals - for example, in terms of data, characteristics, and available models - influence OPP's approaches. This meeting with the SAP is the first of what OPP anticipates will be several meetings over the next few years to improve OPP's evolving approach to evaluating pesticides with varying P and B characteristics. C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to the FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by mid-October 2008. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at *http://www.regulations.gov* and the FIFRA SAP homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap* . The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: July 16, 2008. Elizabeth Resek, Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy. [FR Doc. E8-16738 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522; FRL-8373-3] North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group on Pesticides; Proposed Five-Year Strategy, 2008-2013; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA is releasing for public comment the proposed Five-Year Strategy, 2008-2013, of the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group on Pesticides. In this document, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group

(TWG)on Pesticides states its goal to create an aligned North American registration system for pesticides and products treated with pesticides and make work-sharing a way of doing business. The strategic objectives are to: provide U.S., Canadian and Mexican growers with equal access to—and at the same time introduction of—pest management tools, including safer alternatives; work cooperatively to re-evaluate and reregister older pesticides using each country's re-evaluation programs to the fullest extent possible to increase efficiency; and integrate smart business approaches and practices into NAFTA TWG work. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorry Frigerio, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-605-0654; fax number: 703-308-1850; e-mail address: *frigerio.lorry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a U.S., Canadian or Mexican grower, registrant, researcher, manufacturer, operator, distributor or government regulator of pesticide products in one of the NAFTA countries, as well as an public group or member of the public interested in their use. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(PMRA)of Canada and Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentatíon (SAGARPA) of Mexico, provide overall guidance and policy direction in developing easier and less expensive pesticide regulation and trade among the three countries and in meeting the environmental, ecological and human health objectives of NAFTA. The Five-Year Strategy will guide the TWG's future work and direction. It reflects the collective goal of creating an aligned North American registration system for pesticides and for products treated with pesticides as well as a commitment to partners. It also presents the NAFTA TWG governance structure. The environment within which the TWG operates is constantly changing. A number of drivers, both external and internal, are critical in influencing TWG's strategic directions. They define the work that the TWG must deliver to meet stakeholder needs and improve overall outcomes. The TWG aims to ensure it is well positioned to take advantage of opportunities, monitor trends and assess implications. List of Subjects Environmental protection, harmonization of data requirements, human safety and science issues, effective communication and planning, maintaining high international standards, performance measurement and evaluation. Dated: July 11, 2008. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-16381 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0401; FRL-8365-4] Pesticide Products; Registration Applications AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0401, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0401. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8715; e-mail address: *mendelsohn.mike@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Registration Applications EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications. Products Containing New Active Ingredients not Included in any Previously Registered Products 1. *File Symbol* : 67979-RU. *Applicant* : Syngenta Seeds Inc., P.O. Box 12257, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. *Product name* : MIR162 Maize. Plant-Incorporated Protectant. *Active ingredient* : *Bacillus thuringiensis* Vip3Aa20 and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector pNOV1300) in event MIR162 maize (SYN-IR162-4). *Proposal classification/Use* : For use on corn. 2. *File Symbol* : 67979-RE. *Applicant* : Syngenta Seeds Inc. *Product name* : Bt11 x MIR162 Corn. Plant-Incorporated Protectant. *Active ingredients* : *Bacillus thuringiensis* Vip3Aa20 and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector pNOV1300) in event MIR162 maize (SYN-IR162-4) and *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic material (as contained in plasmid vector pZO1502) necessary for its production in corn. *Proposal classification/Use* : For use on corn. 3. *File Symbol* : 67979-RG. *Applicant* : Syngenta Seeds Inc., P.O. Box 12257, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. *Product name* : Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 Corn. Plant-Incorporated Protectant. *Active ingredients* : *Bacillus thuringiensis* Vip3Aa20 and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector pNOV1300) in event MIR162 maize (SYN-IR162-4) and *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic material (as contained in plasmid vector pZO1502) necessary for its production in corn and Modified Cry3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of pZM26) in corn (SYN-IR604-8). *Proposal classification/Use* : For use on corn. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest. Dated: July 10, 2008. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-16878 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8696-5] EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Request for Nominations of Experts for a Science Advisory Board Committee To Provide Advice on Future Development of EPA's Report on the Environment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB or the Board) Staff Office is soliciting nominations of nationally recognized scientists for consideration of membership on an SAB committee to provide advice on future development of EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE). DATES: Nominations should be submitted by August 13, 2008 per the instructions below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Request for Nominations please contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or via telephone/voice mail

(202)343-9995; fax

(202)233-0643; or e-mail at *armitage.thomas@epa.gov.* General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee that provides independent scientific and technical peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)(5 U.S.C. App. C) and related regulations. Generally, SAB meetings are announced in the **Federal Register** , conducted in public view, and provide opportunities for public input during deliberations. Additional information about the SAB and its committees can be obtained on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* EPA recently published its 2008 Report on the Environment (hereinafter referred to as ROE 2008). This report is available on the EPA Office of Research and Development Web site at: *http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=190806.* In the ROE 2008, EPA presents environmental and human health indicator information to represent the status of and trends in the condition of the nation's environment. The ROE will be used by EPA to:

(1)Inform strategic planning, priority setting, and decision making across the Agency, and

(2)provide information to enable the public to assess whether EPA is succeeding in its overall mission to protect human health and the environment. Individual chapters in the ROE 2008 provide information on the condition of air, water, and land environments. The air chapter focuses outdoor and indoor air quality and greenhouse gases. The water chapter addresses the condition of surface waters, watersheds, ground water, wetlands, coastal waters, drinking water, recreational waters, and consumable fish and shellfish. The land chapter contains indicator information on land cover, land use, wastes on land, chemicals used on land, and contaminated land. Two other chapters in the ROE 2008 focus on human health and ecological condition. The human health chapter provides indicator information on human disease and disease conditions and environmental exposure to pollutants. The ecological condition chapter provides indicator information on the extent and distribution of ecological systems, diversity and biological balance of ecological systems, ecological processes, critical physical and chemical attributes, and exposure to pollutants. The environmental indicators in the ROE 2008 were selected to answer broad questions deemed to be of critical importance to EPA's mission. The ROE 2008 incorporates SAB comments on earlier drafts of the ROE dated 2003 and 2007. The findings and recommendations of these previous SAB reviews are available on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab* (see reports EPA-SAB-05-004 and EPA-SAB-08-007). EPA expects to modify future editions of the ROE based on long-term recommendations in the SAB review of the draft 2007 ROE. This notice specifically requests nominations for candidates to serve on a new SAB committee that will provide advice to EPA over the next few years on how to:

(1)Address previous SAB recommendations to improve future versions of the ROE, and

(2)make the ROE more useful to EPA in informing planning and decision making and providing information to the public. The Committee will ultimately review the next version of the ROE expected to be published in 2012. *Expertise Sought:* The SAB Staff Office requests nominations of recognized experts from a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines with experience and expertise in: designing, implementing, applying and/or communicating indicator information and data at regional and national scales to evaluate the condition of air, water, and/or land environments, human health, and/or ecological condition to inform planning, policy, and decision making. Nominations of experts in various disciplines are requested including:

(a)Environmental scientists and engineers with knowledge of the sources, fate, and transport of air pollutants and outdoor and indoor air quality indicators;

(b)aquatic biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, chemists, oceanographers and microbiologists with expertise in assessing the condition of surface water, ground water, drinking water, wetlands, coastal waters, and/or recreational waters;

(c)environmental scientists, ecologists, soil scientists, and environmental engineers with expertise in the use of indicators (e.g., land cover, land use, wastes on land, chemicals used on land, and contaminated land) to assess the condition of land;

(d)health scientists (e.g., in the fields of public health, epidemiology, medicine, and risk assessment) with expertise in assessing human exposure to environmental pollutants, health risks associated with environmental pollutants, and/or indicators for assessing human health condition; e) ecologists with expertise in the use of indicators to assess the ecological effects of exposure to pollutants and the condition of whole ecosystems;

(f)statisticians with expertise in analysis of environmental information to determine the status of and trends in environmental condition; and

(g)decision scientists, social scientists, communication scientists, and environmental economists with expertise in using and/or communicating environmental indicator information and formulating environmental policy. *How to Submit Nominations:* Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered for appointment on this SAB committee. Candidates may also nominate themselves. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (which is preferred over hard copy) following the instructions for “Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed” provided on the SAB Web site. The form can be accessed through the “Public Involvement in Advisory Committee” link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* To receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the information requested. EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about: the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, at the contact information provided above in this notice. Non-electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same information as the electronic. The SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of the nomination and inform nominees of the committee for which they have been nominated. From the nominees identified by respondents to this **Federal Register** notice (termed the “Widecast”) and other sources, the SAB Staff Office will develop a smaller subset (known as the “Short List”) for more detailed consideration. The Short List will be posted on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.govc/sab* and will include, for each candidate, the nominee's name and biosketch. Public comments on the Short List will be accepted for 21 calendar days. During this comment period, the public will be requested to provide information, analysis, or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates for the Committee. For the SAB, a balanced committee is characterized by inclusion of candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. Public responses to the Short List candidates will be considered in the selection of the Committee, along with information provided by candidates and information gathered by SAB Staff independently concerning the background of each candidate (e.g., financial disclosure information and computer searches to evaluate a nominee's prior involvement with the topic under review). Specific criteria to be used in evaluation of an individual Committee member include:

(a)Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors);

(b)absence of financial conflicts of interest;

(c)scientific credibility and impartiality;

(d)availability and willingness to serve; and

(e)ability to work constructively and effectively in committees. Short List candidates will be required to fill-out the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf.* Dated: July 17, 2008. Anthony F. Maciorowski, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E8-16832 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8696-1] State Innovation Grant Program, Preliminary Notice and Request for Input on the Development of a Solicitation for Proposals for 2009 Awards; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: This notice is issued to correct the Preliminary Notice and Request for Input on the Development of a Solicitation for Proposals for 2009 Awards originally published on July 9, 2008, in the **Federal Register** , 73 FR 39298-39301. This notice extends the deadline one week from August 8, 2008, to August 15, 2008, for response from state environmental regulatory agencies; and revises the list of contacts specifically for EPA Regions 6, 8, and 9 found in the *Opportunities for Dialogue* section. All other information published in the July 9 Notice remains the same. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), National Center for Environmental Innovation

(NCEI)is giving preliminary notice of its intention to solicit pre-proposals for a 2009 grant program to support innovation by state environmental agencies—the “State Innovation Grant Program.” The Agency is also seeking input from state environmental regulatory agencies on the topic areas for the solicitation. In addition, EPA is asking each state environmental regulatory agency to designate a point of contact speaking on behalf of management (in addition to the Commissioner, Director, or Secretary) who will be the point of contact for further communication about the upcoming solicitation. If your point of contact from previous State Innovation Grant solicitations is to be your contact for this year's competition, there is no need to send that information again, as all previously designated points of contact will remain on our notification list for this year's competition. EPA anticipates publication of a Solicitation Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity on the Federal government's grants opportunities Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov* ) to announce the availability of the next solicitation within 60 days. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notice, please contact EPA at this e-mail address: *innovation_state_grants@epa.gov* ; or you may call Sherri Walker at

(202)566-2186. DATES: State environmental regulatory agencies will have until August 15, 2008, to respond with: Suggestions for specific topics that should be included under the general subject area of “Innovation in Environmental Permitting Programs” (e.g., topics with 1-2 paragraphs description) for the next solicitation; and point-of-contact information for the person within the state environmental regulatory agency (in addition to Commissioner, Director, or Secretary) who will be designated to receive future notices about the State Innovation Grant competition. We will automatically transmit notice of availability of the solicitation to people in state agencies identified for previous solicitations. ADDRESSES: We encourage e-mail responses. Information should be submitted in writing via e-mail to: *innovation_state_grants@epa.gov* ; or fax to “State Innovation Grant Program” at

(202)566-2220. If you have questions about responding to this notice, please contact EPA at this e-mail address or fax number, or you may call Sherri Walker at

(202)566-2186. EPA will acknowledge all responses it receives to this notice. If you have not received an acknowledgment from EPA within three

(3)days of the end of the notice period, please send an e-mail to: *innovation_state_grants@epa.gov* or call Sherri Walker at

(202)566-2186. Failure to do so may result in your information or comments not being received by the deadline. EPA will respond to all questions in writing, and all questions and responses will be posted on the EPA State Innovation Grant Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants* . State agencies are advised to monitor this Web site for information posted in response to questions received prior to and during the competition period. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* In April 2002, EPA issued its plan for future innovation efforts, published as Innovating for Better Environmental Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation of Innovation at EPA (EPA 100-R-02-002; *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/pdf/strategy.pdf* ). EPA's Innovation Strategy presents a framework for environmental innovation consisting of four major elements: 1. Strengthening EPA's innovation partnership with states and tribes; 2. Focusing on priority environmental issues; 3. Diversifying environmental protection tools and approaches; and 4. Fostering more “innovation-friendly” systems and organizational cultures. The State Innovation Grant Program strengthens EPA's partnership with the states by supporting state innovation compatible with EPA's Innovation Strategy. EPA wants to encourage states to build on previous experience (theirs and others) to undertake strategic innovation projects that promote larger-scale models with potential for broader use for “next generation” environmental protection that promise better environmental outcomes and other beneficial results. EPA is interested in funding projects that:

(i)Go beyond a single facility experiment and provide change that is “systems-oriented”;

(ii)provide better results from a program, process, or sector-wide innovation; and

(iii)promote integrated (multi-media) environmental management with a high potential for transfer to other states, U.S. territories, and tribes. Since 2002, EPA has sponsored six State Innovation Grant Program competitions that asked for State project pre-proposals that supported the general theme of innovation in environmental permitting. We interpret this theme broadly to include alternatives to permitting and the establishment of incentives to go beyond compliance with permit requirements. To date, the program has supported projects primarily in three strategic focus areas: Application of the Environmental Results Programs

(ERP)model, state performance-based environmental leadership programs similar to the National Environmental Performance Track

(PT)Program, and the application of Environmental Management Systems

(EMS)and other integration tools in permitting. EPA's focus on a small number of topics within this general subject area effectively concentrates the limited resources available for greater strategic impact. Thirty-eight awards to States have been made from the six prior competitions and information on those projects can be found on the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants/projects.htm* . These projects received collectively over 7 million dollars in assistance. The assistance agreement awards for these projects were made to State environmental regulatory agencies and most recently to a commission within a state with a re-delegated authority to administer an environmental permitting program. Among the grant projects, including those with pending awards: Eighteen

(18)were provided for development of Environmental Results Programs, nine

(9)were related to Environmental Management Systems and permitting, nine

(9)were to enhance performance-based environmental leadership programs, two

(2)were for watershed-based permitting, two

(2)were for integrated permitting approaches, and one

(1)was for streamlining a storm water permit program using an innovation in information technology, applying geographic information systems

(GIS)and a web-based portal to a permit application and screening process. Some of the projects funded fit into more than one category (e.g., combination projects of ERP with PT, or ERP with EMS). For information on prior State Innovation Grant Program solicitations and awards, please see the EPA State Innovation Grants Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants* . *Agencies That Are Eligible To Compete for the State Innovation Grant:* Historically, we have limited the competition to state agencies with the primary delegations from EPA for permitting programs. We are aware that some state agencies re-delegate their authorities for permitting programs to regional, county, or municipal agencies. Last year, EPA clarified the eligibility definition in the solicitation to include regional, county, or municipal agencies with re-delegated permitting authority for federal environmental permitting programs. Again this year we will consider these agencies for awards providing that the principal state environmental regulatory agency will be an active member of the project team. Agencies are encouraged to partner with other governmental agencies or non-governmental organizations within the State (or outside of their state) that have complementary environmental mandates or symbiotic interests (e.g., energy, agriculture, natural resources management, transportation, public health). EPA will accept only one pre-proposal in the competition per state. An exception to that limit is anticipated where, as in previous years, a multi-state or state-tribal proposal will be accepted in addition to an individual state proposal. We believe it likely that we will limit this exception so that a state may appear in no more than one multi-state or state-tribal proposal in addition to its individual proposal. States are also encouraged to partner with other states and American Indian tribes to address cross-boundary issues, to encourage collaborative environmental partnering within industrial sectors or in certain topical areas (e.g., agriculture), and to create networks for peer-mentoring. EPA regrets that because of the limitation in available funding it is not yet able to open this competition to American Indian tribal environmental agencies but we strongly encourage tribal agencies to join with adjacent states in project proposals. EPA is interested in hearing from regional, county, or municipal agencies about their interest, capacity, and the likelihood of commitment from the principal statewide regulatory entity to assist a potential project. *Proposed General Topic Areas for Solicitation:* To increase the likelihood of strategic impact with what we anticipate to be limited funds, EPA proposes to continue with the general theme of “innovation in permitting,” and additionally to continue with the focus on the three strategic topic areas similar to the last competition:

(1)Projects that support the development of state Environmental Results Programs (ERP);

(2)projects that implement performance-based environmental leadership programs by states, similar to the National Environmental Performance Track Program particularly including the development and implementation of incentives;

(3)projects which involve the application of Environmental Management Systems (EMS), including those that explore the relationship of EMS to permitting (see EPA's Strategy for Determining the Role of EMS in Regulatory Programs at *http://www.epa.gov/ems* or *http://www.epa.gov/ems/docs/EMS_and the_Reg_Structure_41204F.pdf* ), or otherwise support integrated or multimedia strategies. Connected to this, we are also interested in the application of lean manufacturing tools and techniques for improvement ( *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/lean/* ) in environmental performance and energy efficiency. These proposals may involve a linkage to permitting (e.g., reducing emissions to avoid exceeding permit limits). EPA intends to support state projects that involve innovation in environmental permitting (including alternatives to permitting) related to one of the EPA Innovation Strategy's priority environmental areas, or to other priority areas identified previously by individual states in collaboration with EPA in a formal state-EPA agreement such as a Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). EPA is interested in projects that focus on priority environmental issues, such as reducing greenhouse gases (e.g., energy efficiency), reducing smog, restoring and maintaining water quality, and reducing the cost of water and wastewater infrastructure. *Request for Input on Solicitation Topics and Priorities:* EPA encourages communication from States and other parties about these three thematic areas mentioned here and other areas potentially ripe for innovation. EPA is asking for state environmental regulatory agencies and other interested parties to provide brief (about 1 paragraph) suggestions about additional innovation topics within the subject of innovation in permitting for possible inclusion in the upcoming solicitation. In addition to the three topic areas (ERP, PT, and EMS and integrated approaches), EPA will continue to encourage project proposals that address the four major elements (i.e., strengthening innovation partnerships; focusing on priority environmental issues; diversifying environmental protection tools and approaches; and fostering “innovation-friendly” systems and organizational cultures) and use tools (i.e., incentives, information resources, results-based goals and measures, etc.) highlighted in the Innovation Strategy. EPA may also contemplate projects otherwise related to the general theme of innovation in permitting, in particular as they may address EPA regional and state environmental priorities. To date, the State Innovation Grant Program has supported the application of ERP for the following sectors: • Auto body/auto repair/auto salvage sectors, • Underground storage tanks (UST), • Dry cleaning operations, • Printing, • Animal feedlot operations, • Injection well management, • Oil and gas production, • Food preparation facilities, As well as a multi-sector application targeted at storm water management. We are interested in continuing the EMS and permit integration theme, but may consider introduction of greater latitude under this theme such as the integration of EMS into other business systems such as lean manufacturing or six sigma ( *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/lean/* ). We also anticipate a continued interested in projects that promote the development of state performance track-like projects, perhaps including “on-ramp” approaches for potential environmental leaders that require upfront compliance assistance. Potential applicants are advised outright that State Innovation Grants will not be awarded for the development or demonstration of new environmental technologies, nor will they be awarded for the development of information systems or data or projects that have as a primary focus the upgrading of information technology systems, unless there is a clear link to innovation in specific permitting programs. Projects will be much less likely to be funded through this State Innovation Grant if agency resources pertinent to the topic are already available through another EPA program. Project selections and awards will be subject to funding availability. State environmental regulatory agencies and other respondents should send their suggestions to EPA by e-mail or fax as described in the ADDRESSES section above. *Request for Input on Diffuse Delegations and Designation of a Primary Point of Contact:* One of the principal goals of the State Innovation Grant program is the testing of an integrated (multi-media) innovation with the potential for replication or broader application for other sectors, or in permitting programs in other state or tribal agencies. Because of the limitation of funds we have historically limited the competition to state agencies with a primary delegation from EPA for permitting programs. We have concerns that opening the competition to regulatory entities at lower levels (e.g., air control boards, water quality management districts, counties or municipalities) may limit the range of results and the potential for transferability of innovative approaches. We recognize, however, that in some instances states have re-delegated programs to regional or local agencies and that those agencies may manage substantial permitting programs. EPA is seeking comment from states that may have re-delegated several authorities to other governing regional or municipal agencies or boards rather than in one centralized state environmental regulatory agency and from the boards and districts on how we might better accommodate those delegations in this program and take advantage of the expertise in those programs while maintaining the strategically important goal of testing innovation for broad application and transferability. EPA is not seeking comments on our widening of eligibility to agencies with re-delegated authority. We are seeking to determine how many states and entities with re-delegated authority may be anticipating submitting a pre-proposal. Also, we are seeking specific feedback on topical input that these groups may want to give us. EPA asks that each state environmental regulatory agency designate a primary point-of-contact who we will add to the EPA notification list for further announcements about the State Innovation Grant Program. For point of contact information, please provide: Name, title, department and agency, street or post office address, city, state, ZIP code, telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. If your point of contact from previous State Innovation Grant solicitations is to be your contact for this year's competition, there is no need to send that information again, as all previously designated points of contact will remain on our notification list for this year's competition. We are asking that any new name be submitted with the knowledge and approval of the highest levels of management within an Agency (Commissioner, Director, Secretary, or their deputies). Please submit this information to EPA by mail, fax, or e-mail prior to August 15, 2008, in the following manner. *By e-mail to: Innovation_State_Grants@EPA.gov.* *By fax to:* State Innovation Grant Program;

(202)566-2220. We encourage e-mail responses. If you have questions about responding to this notice, please contact EPA at this e-mail address or fax number, or you may call Sherri Walker at

(202)566-2186. For point-of-contact information, please provide: Name, title, department and agency, mailing address (street or P.O. Box), city, state, ZIP code, telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. EPA will acknowledge all responses it receives to this notice. *Opportunity for Dialogue:* Between now and the initiation of the competition with the release of the solicitation, communication with potential applicants is allowed. This communication may include helping potential applicants determine whether the applicant itself is eligible or if the scope of an applicant's potential project is suitable for funding, as well as responding to general requests for clarification of the notice. To ensure an equal opportunity for all potential applicants, responses to questions that come to us during the period between this pre-announcement and the release of the solicitation along with helpful resource materials will be posted on the State Innovation Grant Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants* . States are also invited to communicate with NCEI about ideas for future competition themes by contacting the EPA Headquarters contact listed below. The contacts for the EPA Regions and the EPA HQ National Center for Environmental Innovation are as follows: Anne Leiby or Josh Secunda, U.S. EPA Region 1, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023,

(617)918-1076 or

(617)918-1736, *leiby.anne@epa.gov* or *secunda.josh@epa.gov, States:* CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT. Jennifer Thatcher, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866,

(212)637-3593, *thatcher.jennifer@epa.gov* , *States & Territories:* NJ, NY, PR, VI. Michael Dunn, U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street (3EA40), Philadelphia, PA 19103,

(215)814-2712, *dunn.michael@epa.gov* , *States:* DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV. LaToya Miller, U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303,

(404)562-9885, *miller.latoya@epa.gov* , *States:* AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN. Marilou Martin, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507,

(312)353-9660, *martin.marilou@epa.gov* , *States:* IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI. Craig Weeks or David Bond, U.S. EPA Region 6, Fountain Place, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,

(214)665-7505 or

(214)665-6431, *weeks.craig@epa.gov* or *bond.david@epa.gov* , *States:* AR, LA, NM, OK, TX. Wendy Lubbe, U.S. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101,

(913)551-7551, *lubbe.wendy@epa.gov* , *States:* IA, KS, MO, NE. Jack Hidinger or Anthony Deloach, U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,

(303)312-6387 or

(303)312-6070, *hidinger.jack@epa.gov* or *deloach.anthony@epa.gov* , *States:* CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY. Kathi Moore or Teddy Ryerson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-1), San Francisco, CA 94105,

(415)972-3271 or

(415)947-8705, *moore.kathi@epa.gov* or *ryerson.teddy@epa.gov* , *States and Territories:* AS, AZ, CA, GU, HI, NV. Bill Glasser, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (ENF-T), Seattle, WA 98101,

(206)553-7215, *glasser.william@epa.gov* , *States:* AK, ID, OR, WA. *Headquarters Office:* Sherri Walker, U.S. EPA (MC 1807T), National Center for Environmental Innovation, State Innovation Grants Program, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, send an e-mail to *innovation_state_grants@epa.gov* , call

(202)566-2186, or fax

(202)566-2220. *Opportunity for Pre-Competition Briefings and Addressing Questions:* In addition, prior to this year's solicitation, we are planning to host a series of informational meetings and opportunities for question and answer (Q&A) sessions via teleconference calls. These conference calls will enable us to offer two-hour streamlined informational sessions to all States prior to our solicitation, and will allow us to answer any questions that the States have prior to the competition, in keeping with Federal requirements that we afford assistance fairly in a competition process. Specific conference call logistics and grant resource information will be provided to each Region as well as being posted on our Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants* . Pre-competition briefing summaries and all other resource materials will be posted on the Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants* . Through this effort, we are hoping to encourage individual States, State-led teams, or other eligible applicants (e.g., regional, county, or municipal agencies with delegated authority for federal environmental permitting programs) to submit well-developed pre-proposals that effectively describe in particular how their project will achieve measurable environmental results. Dated: July 16, 2008. Elizabeth Shaw, Office Director, National Center for Environmental Innovation. [FR Doc. E8-16834 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1082; FRL-8369-8] Sulfluramid Registration Review Proposed Decision; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed registration review final decision for the pesticide sulfluramid and opens a public comment period on the proposed registration review decision. Registration review final is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1082, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1082. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosanna Louie, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0037; fax number:

(703)308-8005 e-mail address: *louie.rosanna@epa.gov* or the specific Regulatory contact, as identified in the Table in Unit II.A. for the pesticide of interest. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Kevin Costello, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-5056; fax number:

(703)308-8090; e-mail address: *caulkins.peter@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(703)308-0037 *louie.rosanna@epa.gov* The docket for registration review of this pesticide case includes earlier documents related to the registration review of the subject case. For example, the review opened with the posting of a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was posted to the docket following public comment on the initial docket. The documents in the initial docket described the Agency's rationales for not conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the sulfluramid. This proposed registration review final decision continues to be supported by those rationales included in documents in the initial docket. Following public comment, the Agency will issue a final registration review decision for products containing sulfluramid. The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended in 1996 by the Food Quality Protection Act, required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and became effective in October 2006 and appears at 40 CFR 155.40. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (“PRIA”) was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA as amended by PRIA in 2007 requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by October 1, 2022 for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007. The registration review final rule provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period for all proposed registration review final decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency Docket for sulfluramid. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and regulations.gov. The final registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments have had on the decision. Background on the registration review program is provided at: *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/* . Quick links to earlier documents related to the registration review of this pesticide are provided at: *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/sulfluramid/index.htm* . B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? FIFRA Section 3(g) and 40 CFR Part 155.40 et seq. provide authority for this action. List of Subjects Environmental protection, registration review, pesticides, and pests. Dated: July 16, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-16737 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Agency Holding the Meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Date and Time: Monday, July 28, 2008, 1 p.m. Eastern Time. Place: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Status: Part of the meeting will be open to the public and part of the meeting will be closed. Matters To Be Considered: Open Session 1. Announcement of Notation Votes; 2. Obligation of Funds for a Competitive Time-and-Materials Contract for Hardware Maintenance Technical Support; and 3. Modifications to the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. Closed Session Agency Adjudication and Determination on Federal Agency Discrimination Complaint Appeals. Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the open session of the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. The remainder of the meeting will be closed. Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over to a later meeting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the **Federal Register** , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.) Please telephone

(202)663-7100 (voice) and

(202)663-4074

(TTY)at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above. Contact Person for More Information: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on

(202)663-4070. Dated: July 21, 2008. Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. [FR Doc. 08-1463 Filed 7-21-08; 1:35 pm]

Connectionstraces to 49

Traces to 49 documents