Under Title II of Sections 201-203 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148) provides the authority to obtain information that will help overcome barriers to the production and use of biomass and help communities and businesses create economic opportunity through sustainable use of the Nation's forest resources. CROP is a new biomass removal model employed on 10 pilot biomass projects across the United States. The projects incorporate proposed 5-year removal data from 36 national forests, 105 ranger districts, 41 BLM districts, and multiple natural resource agencies located in 15 states across the United States. CROP is intended to:

• Coordinate and levelize sustainable removals of biomass between public agencies in each CROP landscape;

• Facilitate the use of long-term multi-agency stewardship contracts;

• Heighten environmental and public trust in coordinated, sustainable biomass removal;

• Increase the ‘surety’ of annual biomass removal contracts from public agencies; and

• Invite investment back into our Nation's forest landscapes based on sustainable removals of woody biomass.

Meeting agenda items will specifically focus on (1) reviewing completed CROP results for all 10 geographic pilot areas and (2) securing collaborative, coordinated, and cooperative input from agency personnel and stakeholders regarding CROP deliverables, on-the-ground annual performance, and monitoring protocols. Agenda items will also detail new collaborative contracting provisions and authority that might be used in CROP landscapes; identify lessons learned during the CROP pilots; target any changes required to make CROP a better forest restoration tool; and define CROP data update and contracting protocols that could be initiated in the next 6-12 months.

Section 320 of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 created the Forest Counties Payments Committee to make recommendations to Congress on a long-term solution for making Federal payments to eligible States and counties in which Federal lands are situated. The Committee will consider the impact on eligible States and counties of revenues from the historic multiple use of Federal lands; evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits which accrue to counties containing Federal lands; evaluate the expenditures by counties on activities occurring on Federal lands, which are Federal responsibilities; and monitor payments and implementation of The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393).

Federal Agency: Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

Funding Opportunity Title: Community Connect Grant Program.

Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.863.

The provision of broadband transmission service is vital to the economic development, education, health, and safety of rural Americans. The purpose of the Community Connect Grant Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide currently unserved areas with residential and community-oriented broadband transmission service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety services. Rural Development will give priority to rural areas that it believes have the greatest need for broadband transmission services, based on the criteria contained in 7 CFR part 1739.

Grant authority will be used for the deployment of broadband transmission service to extremely rural, lower-income communities on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis. The “community-oriented connectivity” concept will stimulate practical, everyday uses and applications of broadband facilities by cultivating the deployment of new broadband transmission services that improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities in rural areas. Such an approach will also give rural communities the opportunity to benefit from the advanced technologies that are necessary to achieve these goals. Please see 7 CFR part 1739, subpart A for specifics.

This notice has been formatted to conform to a policy directive issued by the Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2003. This Notice does not change the Community Connect Grant Program regulation (7 CFR part 1739, subpart A).

1. General. The Administrator has determined that the following amounts are available for grants in FY 2007 under 7 CFR 1739.2(a).

2. Grants.

a. $8.91 million in grant funding is available for award. Under 7 CFR 1739.2, the Administrator has established a minimum grant amount of $50,000 and a maximum grant amount of $1,000,000 for FY 2007.

b. Assistance instrument: Rural Development will execute grant documents with successful applicants appropriate to the project prior to any advance of funds.

B. More than one Community Connect grant cannot be awarded to the same project. Award documents specify the term of each award. Applications to extend existing projects are welcomed (grant applications must be submitted during the application window) and will be evaluated as new applications.

1. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance:

a. An incorporated organization;

b. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(b) and (c);

c. A state or local unit of government; or

d. A cooperative, private corporation or limited liability company organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.

2. Individuals are not eligible for Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance directly.

3. Applicants must have the legal capacity and authority to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in its application, to enter into contracts, and to otherwise comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations.

1. Required matching contributions. (See 7 CFR 1739.14.) Grant applicants must demonstrate a matching contribution, in cash or in kind (new, non-depreciated items), of at least fifteen (15) percent of the total amount of financial assistance requested. Matching contributions must be used for eligible purposes of Community Connect grant assistance (see 7 CFR 1739.12).

2. To be eligible for a grant, the Project must (see 7 CFR 1739.11):

a. Serve a Rural Area where Broadband Transmission Service does not currently exist, to be verified by Rural Development prior to the award of the grant;

b. Serve one and only one Community recognized in the latest U.S. Census or the latest edition of a Rand McNally Atlas;

Contiguous areas outside the Community's boundaries that are not recognized in the U.S. Census or Rand McNally Atlas as a separate Community, can be included in the applicant's proposed Service Area.

c. Deploy Basic Broadband Transmission Service, free of all charges for at least 2 years, to all Critical Community Facilities located within the proposed Service Area;

d. Offer Basic Broadband Transmission Service to residential and business customers within the proposed Service Area; and

e. Provide a Community Center with at least ten (10) Computer Access Points within the proposed Service Area, and make Broadband Transmission Service available therein, free of all charges to users for at least two (2) years.

C. See paragraph IV.C of this notice for a discussion of the items that make up a completed application. You may also refer to 7 CFR 1739.15 for completed grant application items.

1. Rural Development clarifies that the definition of “Critical Community Facilities” includes the mandatory Community Center.

2. For all funding commitments, including all matching fund commitments and commitments made by the applicant, that are required to complete the Project in addition to the Rural Development grant, evidence must be submitted demonstrating that funding arrangements have been obtained. This evidence must:

a. Clearly state the name of the entity making the commitment;

b. The amount of the commitment; and

c. The purpose of commitment.

The application guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Community Connect Grant Program regulation are available on the Internet or by phone as follows:

1. Information is available on the Internet at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm, or http://www.grants.gov.

2. For paper copies of these materials, call the Rural Development Broadband Division at: (202) 690-4673.

1. Detailed information on required items can be found in the Community Connect Grant Program regulation (7 CFR 1739) and the Community Connect Grant Program application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide. This Notice does not change the requirements for a completed application for any form of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance specified in the Community Connect Grant Program regulation. The Community Connect Grant Program regulation and the application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items listed and the Community Connect Grant Program application guide provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets.

2. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions in 7 CFR 1739, subpart A, and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. In preparing an application, applicants must use the Rural Development Application Guide for this program which contains instructions and all necessary forms, as well as other important information. Completed applications must include the following:

a. An Application for Federal Assistance. A completed Standard Form (SF) 424.

b. An executive summary of the Project. The applicant must provide Rural Development with a general project overview.

c. Scoring criteria documentation. Each grant applicant must address and provide documentation on how it meets each of the scoring criteria detailed 7 CFR 1739.17.

d. System design. The applicant must submit a system design containing narrative specifics of the proposal, associated costs, maps, engineering design studies, technical specifications and system capabilities, etc.

e. Scope of work. The scope of work must include: Specific activities and services to be performed under the proposal; identification of who will carry out the activities and services; specific time-frames for completion; and a budget for all capital and administrative expenditures reflecting the line item costs for all grant purposes, the matching contribution, and other sources of funds necessary to complete the project.

f. Community-Oriented Connectivity Plan. The applicant must provide a detailed plan on how their project will connect community residents, businesses, and community facilities to broadband transmission services. (See the application guide for more information.)

g. Financial information and sustainability. The applicant must provide financial statements and information and a narrative description demonstrating the sustainability of the Project. (See the application guide for more information.)

h. A statement of experience. The applicant must provide a written narrative describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating a broadband telecommunications system.

i. Evidence of legal authority and existence. The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant agreement with RUS and to perform the activities proposed under the grant application.

j. Funding commitment from other sources. If the Project requires funding from other sources in addition to the Rural Development grant, the applicant must provide evidence that funding agreements have been obtained to ensure completion of the Project.

k. Compliance with other federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:

(i) 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(ii) 7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.

(iii) 7 CFR part 3017—Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement).

(iv) 7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying.

(v) 7 CFR part 3021—Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).

(vi) Certification regarding Architectural Barriers.

(vii) Certification regarding Flood Hazard Precautions.

(viii) An environmental report, in accordance with 7 CFR 1794.

(ix) Certification that grant funds will not be used to duplicate lines, facilities, or systems providing Broadband Transmission Service.

(x) Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt.

3. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must now supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying. The SF-424 contains a field for the applicant to use when supplying the DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see the Community Connect Web site or Grants.gov for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number.

1. Applications submitted on paper: Submit the original application and two (2) copies to Rural Development.

2. Electronically submitted applications: The additional paper copies are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through Grants.gov.

Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically.

1. Submitting applications on paper.

a. Address paper applications for grants to the Rural Development, Utilities Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2870, STOP 1599, Washington, DC 20250-1599. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Broadband Division, Rural Development Utilities Program.”

b. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping consisting of one of the following:

(i) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark;

(ii) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or

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

c. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. Rural Development encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method.

2. Electronically submitted applications.

a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail.

b. Electronic applications for grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at http://www.grants.gov.

c. How to use Grants.gov:

(i) Navigate your Web browser to http://www.grants.gov.

(ii) Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant information.

(iii) Download a copy of the application package.

(iv) Complete the package off-line.

(v) Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site.

d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.

e. Rural Development encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadline.

f. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

1. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than August 13, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding.

2. Electronic grant applications must be received by August 13, 2007 to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 grant funding.

1. Eligible grant purposes. Grant funds may be used to finance:

a. The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, including spectrum, to deploy Broadband Transmission Service to all participating Critical Community Facilities and all required facilities needed to offer such service to residential and business customers located within the proposed Service Area;

b. The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a Community Center that furnishes free access to broadband Internet service, provided that the Community Center is open and accessible to area residents before, during, and after normal working hours and on Saturday or Sunday. Grant funds provided for such costs shall not exceed the greater of five percent (5%) of the grant amount requested or $100,000;

c. End-User Equipment needed to carry out the Project;

d. Operating expenses incurred in providing Broadband Transmission Service to Critical Community Facilities for the first two (2) years of operation and in providing training and instruction; and

e. The purchase of land, buildings, or building construction needed to carry out the Project.

2. Ineligible grant purposes.

a. Grant funds may not be used to finance the duplication of any existing Broadband Transmission Service provided by another entity.

b. Facilities financed with grant funds cannot be utilized, in any way, to provide local exchange telecommunications service to any person or entity already receiving such service.

3. Please see 7 CFR 1739.3 for definitions, 7 CFR 1739.12 for eligible grant purposes, and 7 CFR 1739.13 for ineligible grant purposes

1. Grant applications are scored competitively and subject to the criteria listed below.

2. Grant application scoring criteria (total possible points: 100) See 7 CFR 1739.17 for the items that will be reviewed during scoring and for scoring criteria.

a. The rurality of the Project (up to 40 points);

b. The economic need of the Project's Service Area (up to 30 points); and

c. The benefits derived from the proposed service to the community residents, businesses, and critical facilities (up to 30 points).

1. All applications for grants must be delivered to Rural Development at the address and by the date specified in this notice (see also 7 CFR 1739.2) to be eligible for funding. Rural Development will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this part. Rural Development may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification.

2. Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned with no further action.

3. Applications conforming with this part will then be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator of Rural Development, and will be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria in 7 CFR 1739.17. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended.

4. Regardless of the score an application receives, if Rural Development determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible, Rural Development will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned with no further action.

Rural Development selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds.

Rural Development recognizes that each funded project is unique, and therefore may attach conditions to a project as part of the award. Rural Development generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. Rural Development follows the award letter with a grant agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. An applicant must execute and return the grant agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the grant agreement.

The items listed in paragraph IV.B.2.k of this notice, and the Community Connect Grant Program regulation, application guide and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements.

1. Performance reporting. All recipients of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to Rural Development until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project. See 7 CFR 1739.19.

2. Financial reporting. All recipients of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by United States Department of Agriculture audit regulations. Please see 7 CFR 1739.20.

A. Web site: http://www.usda.gov/rus/commconnect.htm. This Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for the Community Connect Grant Program.

B. Phone: 202-690-4673.

C. Fax: 202-690-4389.

D. Main point of contact: Kenneth Kuchno, Director, Broadband Division, Rural Development Utilities Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

On May 4, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 25244) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

On May 4, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 25244) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates. The Department also received a request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Antifriction Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from the United Kingdom for one exporter. In addition, the Department received a request to defer for one year the initiation of the May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China with respect to one exporter in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c). The Department received no objections to this request from any party cited in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(l)(ii).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2008. Also, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c), we are deferring for one year the initiation of the May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China with respect to one exporter.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v.United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

This notice is relevant to the following species and distinct population segments (DPSs):

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): threatened, Middle Columbia River.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422), as updated in 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006, NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I), thereby limiting the application of take prohibitions to actions described in that FMEP. Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.

The ODFW had previously submitted FMEPs to NMFS for fisheries in the Middle Columbia region, and those FMEPs were made available for public review on May 4, 2001 (66 FR 22532). Due to comments received regarding a proposed consumptive fishery on natural-origin steelhead in the John Day River basin and concerns with the critical and viable abundance thresholds proposed within the ODFW FMEPs, the FMEPs were not approved by NMFS. To address these concerns, the FMEPs were updated and resubmitted to NMFS for approval in 2005. The FMEPs submitted to NMFS by the ODFW include plans addressing recreational fisheries in the Deschutes River basin, the Umatilla River basin, the John Day River basin, and the Walla Walla River basin in Oregon. These FMEPs include fisheries occurring in all Oregon tributaries to the Middle Columbia River from Chenoweth Creek upstream to and including the Oregon portion of the Walla Walla River. The WDFW submitted an FMEP to NMFS in 2003 that was made available for public comment on July 1, 2003 (68 FR 39066). This FMEP covers steelhead, trout, and warmwater fisheries in Washington tributaries to the Middle Columbia River from the Klickitat River upstream to the Yakima and Walla Walla rivers, excluding the Snake River.

The objective of the fisheries described in the five FMEPs is to harvest known hatchery-origin summer steelhead and other fish species in a manner that does not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the listed MCR steelhead DPS. All fisheries included in these FMEPs will be managed such that only hatchery-origin steelhead that are adipose fin clipped may be retained. Impact levels on listed MCR steelhead are specified in all five FMEPs. Population viability analysis and risk assessments in the FMEPs indicate that the extinction risk for listed steelhead would not increase appreciably as a result of the proposed fishery impact levels. A variety of monitoring and evaluation tasks are specified in the FMEPs to assess the abundance of steelhead, determine fishery effort and catch of steelhead, and monitor angler compliance. A review of compliance with the provisions of the FMEPs will be conducted by the state fisheries agencies annually and a comprehensive review to evaluate the effectiveness of the FMEPs will occur at a minimum every 5 years.

As specified in the July 10, 2000 ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) as updated on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834), NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.

The draft EA analyzes impacts of NMFS' approval or disapproval of the four FMEPs re-submitted by ODFW listed above, and the FMEP for the Middle Columbia region submitted to NMFS by the WDFW.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies conduct and environmental analysis of their actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. Accordingly, NMFS has prepared a draft EA that analyzes the impacts of the approval or disapproval of the six FMEPs, and is making it available for public review and comment. The draft EA analyzes two alternatives: (1) No Action (NMFS does not approve the FMEPs as qualifying for limitation on take prohibitions under the ESA 4(d) rule); and (2) the Proposed Action Alternative (NMFS's approval of the FMEPs pursuant to Limit 4 of the ESA 4(d) rule).

NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on the five submittals from the ODFW and WDFW. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.

This notice is provided pursuant to the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). The final NEPA determination will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and after NMFS has fully considered all comments received during the public comment period.

Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities.

The rule further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the rule do not apply to activities associated with fishery harvest provided that an FMEP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule.

NEPA authorization: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

The purpose of the STAR Panel meetings is to review draft stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information, work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions, and produce STAR Panel reports for use by the Council family and other interested persons. No management actions will be decided by these STAR Panels. The STAR Panels' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Council at its September meeting in Portland, OR.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STAR Panel participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STAR Panel action during these meetings. STAR Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STAR Panel participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

All WRC visitors will be required to show a valid picture ID and register with security every morning. A visitor's badge, which must be worn while at the NOAA Facility, will be issued to non-Federal employees participating in the meeting.

The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks. The SEDAR Steering Committee meets twice annually to provide oversight of the SEDAR process, establish assessment priorities, and provide coordination between assessment efforts and management activities.

During this meeting the Steering Committee will receive reports on recent SEDAR activities, consider benchmark and update assessment scheduling for 2009-12, receive reports from the Councils regarding research and monitoring priorities, and discuss procedural issues that have arisen since the previous meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Open sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend: however, seating is limited to the space available at the National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center. Individuals or organizations wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Task Force should provide their comments in an electronic (PDF Format) document through the Task Force Web site ( www.DoDfuturehealthcare.net ) at the “Contact Us” page, no later than five (5) business days prior to the scheduled meeting.

None.

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 .

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.

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-2007-0498 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 September 24, 2007, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. However, written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting. Persons wishing to submit written comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies. Anyone submitting written comments after September 24, 2007, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . There is no limit on the extent of written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP.

2. Oral comments . The Agency encourages that each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than October 2, 2007, 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 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 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: amphibian ecology/biology, ecotoxicology, developmental toxicology, endocrine disruption, statistics and 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 July 16, 2007. 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 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 disclosure 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 web site at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 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 the FQPA of 1996, 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 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.

EPA conducted an extensive review of open literature and registrant-submitted studies concerning the potential effects of atrazine on amphibian gonadal development and concluded in 2003 that there was sufficient information to hypothesize that atrazine exposure can result in effects on amphibian gonadal development. EPA also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to refute or confirm that hypothesis because the collective studies failed to show that atrazine produced consistent, reproducible effects across the range of exposure concentrations and amphibian species tested in the studies. EPA summarized the studies and its evaluation of the studies in a White Paper and presented its analysis, conclusions and recommendations to the SAP during the meeting held on June 17 - 20, 2003.

The SAP concurred with EPA's interpretation of the available data and with EPA's recommendations to seek additional data. Additionally, the SAP concurred with the study approach described in the White Paper for addressing uncertainties identified in the available studies.

In response to the uncertainties identified in the White Paper and based on the recommendations made by the SAP, EPA issued a Data Call-in Notice (DCI) on November 12, 2004, to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and other atrazine registrants. The DCI required the registrant to conduct amphibian studies to determine if exposure to atrazine can affect amphibian gonadal development. Secondary objectives of these studies were to provide information on the repeatability of previous observations, develop a sound dose-response relationship, and determine the developmental sensitivity of the amphibian species that are being tested.

On October 9 -12, 2007, EPA will return to the SAP with a second White Paper discussing the results of the registrant's amphibian studies conducted in 2005 - 2006. In addition, EPA has continued to review the open literature studies investigating whether atrazine exposure affects amphibian gonadal development. For the SAP meeting, EPA plans to include only those studies published in the open scientific literature that tested atrazine alone and examined atrazine's potential effects on amphibian gonadal development. Studies on mixtures of pesticides that include atrazine as well as studies of the potential for atrazine to cause adverse effects other than amphibian gonadal development are not being considered for the SAP meeting.

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-September. 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 web site or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

The FY 1997 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-201) directed the Secretary of the Navy to establish the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP, http://www.nopp.org ). Supplemental legislation for appointments to the NOPP oversight body, the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), and to the Ocean Research Advisory Panel is contained in Public Law 105-85, the FY 1998 Defense Authorization Act. The NOPP promotes the goals of assuring national security, advancing economic development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening science education and communication through improved knowledge of the ocean. The NORLC, comprising leaders of fifteen Federal agencies, guides NOPP in identifying and carrying out partnerships among Federal agencies, industry, and other members of the ocean sciences community in support of those goals.

In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) completed its report, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.” In December 2004, the President submitted to Congress his formal response, the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (OAP) ( http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf ), which outlines a new ocean governance structure to: (1) Coordinate the activities of executive departments and agencies regarding ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective manner to advance the environmental, economic, and security interests of present and future generations of Americans; and (2) Facilitate, as appropriate, coordination and consultation regarding ocean-related matters among Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, the private sector, foreign governments, and international organizations.

On December 17, 2004, President Bush established by Executive Order 13366 a Cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy to coordinate the activities of executive branch departments and agencies regarding ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective manner to advance the environmental and economic interests of present and future generations of Americans.

As detailed in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, to help support its work, the Committee on Ocean Policy established the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI) co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Associate Director for Science and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chief of Staff, who report directly to the Chair of the Committee on Ocean Policy. The members consist of Under/Assistant Secretaries or their equivalents from the Executive branch agencies and departments of the Committee on Ocean Policy. The functions of ICOSRMI include: (1) Facilitate and coordinate the work of existing ocean and coastal interagency groups focused on the management of living and nonliving marine resources; (2) recommend the creation of new topical task forces as needed; (3) coordinate with government-wide environmental and natural resource efforts that have important ocean components; (4) identify opportunities for improvements in the application of science for ecosystem-based management of ocean resources; (5) identify priority research needs that can enhance management capabilities; (6) facilitate use of ocean science and technology, including ocean observations, in the implementation of ocean and coastal management and policies; (7) recommend assessments and analyses of Federal ocean resource management initiatives; (8) identify opportunities and articulate priorities for enhancing ocean education, outreach, and capacity building; and (9) identify opportunities for the promotion of international collaboration in ocean resource management. ICOSRMI incorporates the National Ocean Research Leadership Council's (NORLC) current mandate within its broader mandate that includes ocean resource management. ( http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/icosrmi.html ).

Since January 2005, the Administration has worked actively with Federal agencies to establish the new ocean governance structure and link existing groups with new entities. The functions of NORLC have transitioned to this new OAP structure in order to align, simplify and strengthen the Federal ocean governance.

Agenda: The agenda will be focused on subprime mortgages. The agenda may be subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. CHAPTER 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Insurance Application for the Origination of Reverse Mortgages and Related Documents.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0524.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The documents requested are used to determine the eligibility of a reverse mortgage loan application and property requirements for FHA's mortgage insurance. This collection also ocntains disclosure requirements that will provide the prospective borrower with statutory and regulatory information needed to explain the financial implications of and alternatives to a HECM; the costs associated with obtaining a reverse mortgage; due and payable conditions and other relevant information necessary to determine if this type of mortgage transaction is for the sole benefit of the borrower. Without these documents, HUD would have difficulty in determining the eligibility of a loan application and property, thus, jeopardize the insurance fund.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: FNMA 1009 and 1003, HUD-92900-A, HUD-92901, HUD-92902, HUD-1, HUD-92051, HUD-92800.5B, HUD-92561, FANNIE MAE 1004, FANNIE MAE 1004C, FANNIE MAE 1073, and FANNIE MAE 1025.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: This OMB Information Collection has an estimated total burden hours of 132,894.40, with an estimated 2,020 respondents and a total of 90,020 responses.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement of a currently approved collection OMB Control No. (2502-0524).

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgage Record Change.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0422.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Mortgage Record Change information is used by FHA-approved mortgagees to comply with HUD requirements for reporting the sale of a mortgage between investors, the transfer of the mortgage servicing responsibility, and a change in mortgagors, as appropriate. The information required is used to update HUD's Insurance System and other related systems. Current data is necessary to establish mortgage premium liability, forward annual premium mortgage data to the appropriate mortgagee/servicer, and maintain premium receivables and program data regarding investors/servicer activity. Without the required data, the premium collection/monitoring function would be severely impeded and program data would be unreliable. This information is essential because HUD does case level accounting in recording premium payments by mortgagees.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-92080 is used for multifamily loans only. Information for single family loans is collected 100% electronically.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 160,025 hours annually. An estimated 2,600 respondents file 1,600,025 responses annually, and the time needed to provide the information is 6 minutes on average.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Minimum Property Standards for Housing.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0321.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Information on local property standards for assisted multifamily housing and care-type facilities is collected from State and local governments to assess the equivalency of their existing housing standards in meeting HUD's minimum requirements. If such State or local codes are deemed equivalent, HUD assisted properties need only comply with such equivalent codes.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 8,000; the number of respondents is 1,000 generating approximately 1,000 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response eight hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD Conditional Commitment/Direct Enforcement Statement of Appraised Value.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0494.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This request for OMB review involves an extension of a previously approved information collection, Form HUD 92800.5B, Conditional Commitment/Direct Enforcement Statement of Appraised Value (OMB control number 2502-0494). Section 203 of the National Housing Act (Pub. L. 479, 48 Stat. 1256, 12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to insure mortgages on single-family homes, including proposed and existing construction, when requested by FHA approved mortgagees. Form HUD 92800.5B serves as the mortgagee's conditional commitment/direct endorsement of FHA mortgage insurance on the property. The form provides for a statement of the property's appraised value and other required FHA disclosures to the homebuyer, including specific conditions that must be met before HUD can endorse a firm commitment for mortgage insurance.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-92800.5B.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response : The estimated number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 51,000 hours; the number of respondents is 8,000 generating approximately 425,000 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response is 7 minutes per response.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Background: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive Order 7764, dated December 6, 1937, stating the official purpose of the refuge was, “* * * as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” A secondary purpose of the refuge is “* * * for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)].

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is one of four refuges that comprise the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. It is located eight miles south of Hackberry on State Highway 27 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The refuge currently occupies the marshes between Calcasieu and Sabine Lakes and consists of 125,790 acres of open water and marsh grassland. The East Cove Unit, originally established as part of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, was administratively transferred to Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge in 1992. The East Cove Unit, also in Cameron Parish, consists of 14,927 acres of brackish to intermediate marsh, bordered on the west by Calcasieu Lake, and on the north, east, and south by privately owned marshes. The East Cove Unit is also part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, a cooperative effort among local, State, and Federal agencies and the private sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron Parish. The Service manages the Cameron Creole Watershed Project under cooperative agreement among sponsors. The overall focus area to be evaluated in this Draft CCP/EA totals 140,717 acres.

Significant issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include: Recovery from damages incurred by Hurricane Rita; management of migratory birds, with special emphasis on waterfowl (especially northern pintails and mottled ducks); management and restoration of unique coastal wetland habitats; management of oil and gas activities; access management for public use activities, including recreational freshwater sportfishing and hunting; and protection of cultural resources.

Also addressed in the Draft CCP/EA are compatibility determinations for the following uses: (1) Recreational freshwater sportfishing; (2) recreational sportfishing tournaments; (3) recreational hunting; (4) environmental education and interpretation; (5) wildlife observation and photography; (6) research and monitoring; (7) commercial alligator harvest; (8) commercial video and photography; (9) commercially guided wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; and (10) beneficial use of dredge material.

Alternatives: The Service developed three alternatives for management of the refuge (alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative B as the proposed alternative. We believe this alternative will be the most effective one to contribute to the purpose for which the refuge was established and to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Alternative A, also called the “No Action” alternative, is the baseline or status quo of refuge programs and is usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and management strategies, with no changes or changes that would have occurred without the CCP. Sabine Refuge, which was severely affected by Hurricane Rita in September 2005, is currently closed to most activities other than essential operations, and hurricane clean-up and restoration activities.

Non-essential programs, such as public use, would cease. Research monitoring activities and the fire program, including both prescribed fire as well as extinguishing wildfires, would continue. Hazardous debris removal and Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act projects would continue. Oil and gas operations would continue. Law enforcement operations would increase to ensure that the more than 300,000 annual visitors who normally use the refuge comply with the closure. Sabine Refuge staff would function at an office located off-site. Cultural resources would continue to be protected. As hurricane recovery is accomplished, the refuge would essentially be managed as it was prior to the devastation from the historic storm. The East Cove Unit would continue to be managed under an inter-agency management agreement.

Alternative B, our proposed alternative, would continue to keep the refuge operational with minimal public use programs functional but at a reduced cost (near-term). It would increase marsh restoration, enhance fish and wildlife management, and expand public use (long-term).

Over the near-term, programs would continue throughout the refuge commensurate with the levels of hazardous material clean-up and restoration. Over time, public use areas would be re-opened as repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. Fire and research programs would remain active. Existing oil and gas operations would continue at the normal level, but new operations would be closely assessed under Service regulations and Federal laws. Staff assigned to the refuge would function out of a hurricane-resistant building to be located at the original headquarters site.

Over the long-term, under Alternative B, Sabine Refuge would increase marsh restoration and enhance wildlife management, stepping up these efforts from current levels. Like Alternative A, Alternative B would maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at established discrete salinity stations. Improving water quality would be a major thrust for the refuge. The refuge would provide additional opportunities for friends, volunteers, partners, and interns to assist the refuge.

Management of the East Cove Unit under Alternative B would be identical to Alternative A. Gates at the water control structures would be operated to restore preferred vegetated plant communities associated with intermediate or possibly slightly brackish environments. Staff would evaluate the use of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water areas. During the life of the CCP, an assessment would be conducted to determine the need for sanctuary in the East Cove Unit, which would minimize detrimental waterfowl disturbances. The invasion of exotic plant species, with special emphasis on giant salvinia, would be monitored. Public fishing access to the East Cove Unit would be improved.

Alternative C would hold the refuge in custodial form. Major restoration and recovery efforts from devastation caused by Hurricane Rita would be curtailed. The fire and research programs would remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas operations would continue at the current level. No active habitat management would occur. Instead, refuge and complex staff would serve as good caretakers or custodians of the refuge, observing and monitoring the natural forces and ecological succession that would shape its habitats and effectively determine their suitability for wildlife. The Service would conduct no prescribed fire and would limit fire management to hazardous fuel reduction and suppression of wildfires. There would be no need to replace and upgrade equipment and facilities, such as pumps, tractors, and water control structures. This alternative would result in very little effective high-quality waterfowl sanctuary. That is, high ground would succeed to a mix of Chinese tallow, willow, and hackberry, while lower ground reverted to dense stands of maidencane. There would be few open areas.

With regard to public use, each of the six priority public uses would be strongly encouraged but facilities would be limited. Management of cultural resources and the East Cove Unit under Alternative C would be identical to Alternatives A and B.

This Final Programmatic EIS provides a comprehensive analysis of the BLM's use of chemical herbicides in its various vegetation treatment programs related to hazardous fuels reduction, invasive terrestrial and aquatic plant species management, noxious weeds, and resource rehabilitation following catastrophic fires, and other disturbances.

In addition, an accompanying environmental report for vegetation provides an assessment of the expected effects of the use of herbicides, in addition to other vegetation treatment methods (fire, mechanical, manual, and biological) on up to approximately 5,030,000 acres of public lands per year. Together, these documents:

• Consider reasonably foreseeable activities, particularly hazardous fuels reduction treatments, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts, noxious weeds, and invasive terrestrial plant species management.

• Address human health and ecological risk for proposed use of chemical herbicides on public lands.

• Provide a cumulative impact analysis for the use of chemical herbicides in conjunction with other treatment methods.

The Final Programmatic EIS is neither a land-use plan nor a land-use plan amendment. The Final Programmatic EIS and Environmental Report will provide a comprehensive, programmatic NEPA document and environmental report that allows effective tiering and incorporation by reference, environmental effects and baseline cumulative impact assessments for other new, revised, or existing land use and activity level plans and implementation projects that involve vegetation modification or maintenance. This Final Programmatic EIS does not affect the status of the herbicide court injunction in Oregon. The analysis area includes only surface estate public lands administered by 11 BLM State offices: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana (North Dakota/South Dakota), New Mexico (Oklahoma/Texas/Nebraska), Nevada, Oregon (Washington), Utah, and Wyoming.

The BLM issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Programmatic Environmental Report on November 10, 2005. The BLM held ten public hearings in late 2005, and extended the public comment period an additional 30 days to February 10, 2006.

The BLM responded to over 3,000 individual public comments during the Draft Programmatic EIS public review period. Comment responses and resultant changes in the impact analysis are documented in this Final Programmatic EIS and Environmental Report per requirements under 40 CFR 1503.4. Additional information and analysis is included in the Final Programmatic EIS addressing comments related to chemical degradates, use of surfactants and risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. In addition, the Final Programmatic EIS contains subsistence analysis required under Section 801(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The BLM will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS after July 30, 2007.

The recently enacted GOMESA of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432, December 20, 2006) mandated MMS to offer a portion of the “181 Area” located in the newly defined Eastern Planning Area, more than 125 miles from Florida and west of the Military Mission Line (86 degrees, 41 minutes 30 seconds West longitude) for oil and gas leasing “as soon as practicable, but not later than 1 year, after the date of enactment of this Act.” The Act mandates offering this area “notwithstanding the omission of the 181 Area * * * from any OCS leasing program under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).” However, this action is not exempted from other legal requirements, such as NEPA or the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The MMS has prepared an SEIS to the original Sale 181 EIS published in 2001 (which encompassed the lands now being considered for Sale 224) in order to address these requirements. To meet the 1-year requirements of GOMESA, this sale should be held no later than December 2007. However, to comply fully with all pertinent laws, rules, and regulations, and to allow the public an opportunity to participate in the NEPA process, the earliest MMS would be able to offer this area for leasing would be approximately March 2008. Postponing the sale to be held as “soon as practicable” while complying with all applicable laws is in the best interests of all parties, including the American public as owners of these resources. It also is more economical and efficient for the Government and industry to hold this sale in conjunction with Central GOM Sale 206 at the same time and location. The area to be offered in Sale 224 is small, approximately 130 tracts, whereas recent Central Gulf sales have offered over 4,000 tracts. The logistics of holding a sale are intensive and relatively costly; therefore, it makes sense to hold the smaller sale in conjunction with a larger sale. Additionally, holding Sale 224 in conjunction with Sale 206 would help ensure that a sufficient number of companies would be represented in bidding, which may enhance the number of bids and possibly the revenue generated by more competitive bidding.

This NOA follows the Call for Information and Nominations and the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS in the prelease process for the sale. The draft SEIS associated with this NOA updated the environmental and socioeconomic analyses in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181, Eastern Planning Area Final EIS (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001-051), which addressed the original “Sale 181 Area.” The MMS plans to complete the requirements of NEPA, the OCS Lands Act, and CZMA coverage for the proposed lease sale.

SEIS Availability: To obtain a single, printed or CD-ROM copy of the draft SEIS, you may contact the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). An electronic copy of the draft SEIS is available at the MMS Internet Web site at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/nepaprocess.html. Many libraries along the Gulf Coast have been sent copies of the draft SEIS. To find out which libraries, and their locations, have copies of the draft SEIS for review, you may contact the MMS Public Information Office or visit the MMS Internet Web site at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/libraries.html.

Public Hearings: The MMS will hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft SEIS. The public hearings are scheduled as follows:

• July 24, 2007, Larose Civic Center, Larose Regional Park, Larose, Louisiana, 7 p.m.

• July 26, 2007, Florida New World Landing, 600 South Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida, 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.

If you wish to present testimony at a hearing, you should register one hour prior to the meeting. Each hearing will briefly recess when all speakers have had an opportunity to speak. If there are no additional speakers, the hearing will adjourn immediately after the recess. Written statements submitted at a hearing will be considered part of the hearing record. If you are unable to attend the hearings, you may submit written statements.

Comments: Federal, State, and local government agencies, and other interested parties are requested to send their written comments on the draft SEIS in one of the following two ways:

1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on the Lease Sale 224 SEIS” and mailed (or hand carried) to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment (MS 5410), Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394.

2. Electronically to the MMS e-mail address: environment@mms.gov.

Comments should be submitted no later than 45 days from the publication of this NOA.

Official Protraction Diagrams and Leasing Maps may be obtained in two digital formats: gra files for use in ARC/INFO and .pdf files for viewing and printing in Adobe Acrobat.

The USIBWC is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain any project or works projected by the United States of America on the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), as authorized by the Act of the 74th Congress, Sess. I Ch. 561 (H.R. 6453), approved August 19, 1935 (49 Stat. 660), and codified at 22 U.S.C. Section 277, 277a, 277b, 277c, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.

The LRGFCP was constructed to protect urban, suburban, and highly developed irrigated farmland along the Rio Grande delta in the United States and Mexico.

The USIBWC, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), prepared this Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the proposed action of raising the Donna-Brownsville Levee System located in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas to improve flood control. This levee system is part of the LRGFCP that extends approximately 180 miles from the Town of Peñitas in south Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. The Donna-Brownsville Levee extends 65 miles along the Rio Grande, downstream from the Donna Pump Station in Hidalgo County to an area east of Brownsville, approximately 28 miles upstream of the Gulf of Mexico, in Cameron County.

The Proposed Action would increase the flood containment capacity of the Donna-Brownsville Levee System by raising elevation of a number of levee segments to meet a 3-foot freeboard design criterion for flood protection. Height increases up to 2 feet are typically needed to reach the design freeboard value. The increase in levee height will result in an expansion to the levee footprint by lateral extension of the structure. Structural improvements may be required for some levee segments where seepage is a potential problem.

A No Action Alternative was evaluated for the Donna-Brownsville Levee System. This alternative will retain the existing configuration of the system, as designed over 30 years ago, and the current level of protection currently associated with this system. Under severe storm events, current containment capacity may be insufficient to fully control Rio Grande flooding, with risks to personal safety and potential property damage.

Pursuant to NEPA guidance (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), The President's Council on Environmental Quality issued regulations for NEPA implementation, which included provisions for both the content and procedural aspects of the required Environmental Assessment. The USIBWC completed an EA of the potential environmental consequences of raising the Donna-Brownsville Levee System to meet current requirements for flood control. The EA, which supports this Finding of No Significant Impact, evaluated the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

The No Action Alternative was evaluated as the single alternative action to the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative will retain the current configuration of the Donna-Brownsville Levee System, with no impacts to biological and cultural resources, land use, community resources, or environmental health issues. In terms of flood protection, however, current containment capacity under the No Action Alternative may be insufficient to fully control Rio Grande flooding under severe storm events, with associated risks to personal safety and property.

Improvements to the Donna-Brownsville Levee System require excavation and fill activities that would affect plant communities within the expanded levee footprint area. Nearly all vegetation removal, 51.5 acres, would be limited to invasive-species grassland that is expected to be rapidly re-established. While approximately 17 percent of the 65 mile levee system is adjacent to conservation areas, those non-native grasslands are located within the right-of-way (ROW) and have very limited value as wildlife habitat. No significant effects are anticipated for any of the 15 threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in the vicinity of the levee system. No wetlands are located within the potential levee expansion area.

Improvements to the Donna-Brownsville Levee System may adversely affect known archaeological resources, by mechanical excavation or by burial under the expanded levee footprint. Resources potentially affected include eight areas that may contain historic or prehistoric archaeological materials, and one known archaeological site. Out of 65 historic-age resources located in the levee system vicinity, twelve could be affected by the proposed levee improvements. Those historic-age resources are mostly associated with irrigation structures and canals adjacent to the levee system.

Improvements to the levee system would increase flood containment capacity to control the design flood event with a negligible increase in water surface elevation. Levee footprint expansion would not affect water bodies.

The expansion would take place almost completely within the ROW and would not affect urban or agricultural lands. A minimum removal of woodland from natural resources management areas, less than 1 acre, would be required.

In terms of socioeconomic resources, the influx of federal funds into Hidalgo and Cameron Counties from the levee improvement project would have a positive local economic impact limited to the construction period; the impact would represent less than 1 percent of the annual county employment, income and sales values. No adverse impacts to disproportionately high minority and low-income populations were identified for construction activities. Moderate utilization of public roads is required during construction; a temporary increase in access road use would be required for equipment mobilization to staging areas.

Estimated air emissions of five criteria pollutants during construction represent from 0.06 percent to 1.64 percent of the Hidalgo and Cameron Counties annual emissions inventory. There would be a moderate increase in ambient noise levels due to excavation and fill activities. No long-term and regular exposure is expected above noise threshold values. A database search identified a number of waste storage or disposal sites in the levee system vicinity, all located within the City of Brownville. None of those sites would affect, or be affected, by the levee improvement project.

Engineering design measures will be used, including optimization of the levee expansion alignment to avoid impacts on wooded vegetation, wetlands, and other natural resources. Best management practices during construction will include development of a storm water pollution prevention plan to avoid impacts to receiving waters, and use of sediment barriers and soil wetting to minimize erosion.

To protect vegetation, the construction corridor may be re-vegetated with herbaceous or woody vegetation, as agreed with the natural resources management organization where the levee expansion corridor is located. To protect wildlife, construction activities will be scheduled to occur, to the extent possible, outside the March to August bird migratory season.

To avoid significant impacts on cultural resources, an additional survey of archaeological and historical resources will be conducted following completion of the engineering design phase, and mitigation actions will be adopted as recommended by the Texas Historical Commission (THC). Measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to historical or archaeological resources will be specified in a Memorandum of Agreement between THC and the USIBWC.

Single hard copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact may be obtained by request at the above address. Electronic copies may also be obtained from the USIBWC Home Page at http://www.ibwc.state.gov .