OMB No:

Form No: N/A.

Title: Partner Vetting System (PVS).

Type of Review: NEW Information Collection.

Purpose: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Office of Security, intends to collect information from approximately 2000 individuals and/or officers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who apply for USAID contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, other funding from USAID, or who apply for registration with USAID as Private and Voluntary Organizations (PVO). Collection of personally identifiable information from these individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that neither USAID funds nor USAID-funded activities inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism.

Annual Reporting Burden: Respondents: 2000. Total annual responses: 2000. Total annual hours requested: 500 hours.

On July 17, 2007, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced in the Federal Register (72 FR 39021-39025, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0112) the availability of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) related to our consideration of revisions to our regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. The DEIS evaluates the alternatives we have identified in terms of their potential effects on the human environment compared to the effects of our current regulatory program. We believe our ongoing evaluation of these alternatives would benefit from the submission of additional views and data from the public, and we are especially interested in receiving comments on the subset of DEIS alternatives described in our July 17, 2007, notice. That notice specified how comments from the public may be submitted for consideration, and that we would consider comments received on or before September 11, 2007.

In order to provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on the DEIS, APHIS will hold four public forums in three locations: Riverdale, MD; Davis, CA; and Kansas City, MO (see ADDRESSES above). These informal forums are designed to engage interested individuals and elicit comments related to the DEIS. The format will consist of informational posters and comment stations. Attendees will be able to walk through the forum during the scheduled hours and interact with other attendees and APHIS personnel. Brief welcoming remarks will be given by APHIS personnel at 4:30 pm and again at 6 p.m. local time (the 6 p.m. briefing will not occur at the August 3, 2007, meeting in Riverdale, MD). There is no set schedule for each poster station, so the public may come and go at any time during the forum period. Participants will have the opportunity to record brief oral comments with a court reporter or to submit comments in writing, following directions provided at the comment stations.

The purpose of these forums is to provide the public with an opportunity to obtain information regarding the DEIS and interact with APHIS representatives, and to allow APHIS to gather further information on potential impacts on the human environment resulting from possible revision of our regulations. Comments received at these public forums will be considered along with the comments we receive on the DEIS in response to our July 17, 2007, notice.

Please note that a fee of $2.25 is required to enter the parking lot at the USDA Center at Riverside. The machine accepts $1 bills or quarters. Picture identification is required to be admitted into the building. Upon entering the building, visitors should inform security personnel that they are attending the DEIS meeting.

WGFC is the agency responsible for management of wildlife in the State of Wyoming. WGFC has constructed structures and utilized segments of land on the Bridger-Teton National Forest for more than 50 years to conduct their winter elk management programs. This use of NFS land has been authorized in the past by the issuance of permits. The WGFC has requested long term authorization to continue this established use.

The purpose and need for action is to respond to the WGFC request for long term Special Use Permits. The Special Use Permits would authorize the proposed intermittent occupancy and use of specified lands for activities associated with their winter elk management program.

The proposed action is to authorize the continued use of NFS lands by the WGFC for corrals, sheds, chutes, and feeding grounds associated with their ongoing winter elk management program. The specific areas addressed in this action include the following sites:

(1) Fish Creek.

(2) Pritchard Creek (Dog Creek).

(3) Muddy Canyon.

(4) Fall Creek.

(5) Alkali Creek.

(6) Upper Green River.

(7) Patrol Cabin.

Three preliminary alternatives have been identified: (1) The no action alternative—no Special Use Authorization would be issued, (2) The proposed action—issuance of authorization to the WGFC, and (3) authorization of the proposed use with modifications.

The Forest Service is the lead agency. WGFC is a cooperating agency.

The responsible forest officer for this proposed action is Carole “Kniffy” Hamilton, Forest Supervisor, Bridger-Teton National Forest, 340 N. Cache, P.O. Box 1888, Jackson, WY 83001.

The decision to be made is whether or not to authorize, in whole or in part, use of specific NFS lands by the WGFC for corrals, sheds, chutes, and feeding grounds associated with their ongoing elk feeding and management program.

The first formal opportunity to respond to the proposed action listed above is during the public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) which begins with the issuance of this Notice of Intent. Scoping letters will be sent to the forest mailing list of known interested parties, and public meetings will be scheduled in Jackson and Pinedale, WY. The time and place for those meetings will be published in the local papers and posted on the forest Web site. The scoping process will assist the forest in identifying specific issues to be addressed related to the purpose and need and the scope of the decision. Mail comments to the addresses given above for further information. Ongoing information related to the proposed action and related analysis will be posted on the Bridger-Teton National Forest Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/btnf .

Preliminary issues associated with the proposed action include:

(1) Concentrated use of the specified areas by elk could affect local habitat due to heavy browsing of willows and other shrubs.

(2) Concentrated use of the specified areas during warmer spring days could impact soils due to trampling on the area.

(3) Importing of hay would increase the possibility of introducing noxious weeds.

If the decision is to authorize the WGFC to occupy and use National Forest System lands, it will be done through the issuance of a Special Use Authorization. (36 CFR part 251 subpart B)

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the DEIS will be for a period of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by August 24, 2007 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Call for new projects and (2) Public comment.

On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan , 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995).

On August 31, 2006, the Department received a request from Ambica to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. On September 26, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register , a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of Ambica covering the period February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 71 FR 56105 (September 26, 2006).

On September 26, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ambica. We received responses on October 26, 2006, and November 29, 2006.

On December 19, 2006, the petitioners 1 alleged that Ambica made sales below the cost of production (“COP”). We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales by Ambica in the home market had been made at prices below the cost of production and initiated a sales below cost investigation on January 23, 2007. See Memorandum from Devta Ohri, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Ambica Steels Limited,” dated January 23, 2007 (“ Sales Below Cost Memorandum ”). On January 24, 2006, we requested that Ambica respond to the Section D cost of production section of the Department's original questionnaire. Ambica filed its response to Section D on February 15, 2007.

On March 5, 2007, the Department published an extension of the time limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review to no later than July 17, 2007. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2006 New Shipper Review , 72 FR 9732 (March 5, 2007).

We issued supplemental questionnaires to Ambica in December 2006, March 2007, and April 2007. Ambica responded in December 2006 and May 2007.

Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products ( i.e. , cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( i.e. , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections.

The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, “Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling,” dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice of Scope Rulings , 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we intend to verify the information provided by Ambica in September or October 2007.

The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006.

Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated whether the U.S. transaction reported by Ambica during the POR was a bona fide sale. Among the factors examined was the relationship between Ambica and its reported U.S. customer. Based on our investigation, we preliminarily determine that Ambica's sale was made on a bona fide basis. For our complete analysis, see Memorandum from Devta Ohri, International Trade Compliance Analyst to the File entitled, “ bona fide Nature of Ambica Steels Limited's Sales in the New Shipper Review for Stainless Steel Bar from India,” dated July 17, 2007, on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, all references to the Department of Commerce's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2007).

To determine whether Ambica's sales of SSB to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For further details, see the “Normal Value” section, below.

We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the home market based on the following criteria: (1) General type of finish, (2) Grade, (3) Remelting, (4) Type of final finishing operation, (5) Shape, and (6) Size. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is defined as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price (“CEP”) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).

For Ambica's sales to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because Ambica's merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the packed cost, insurance, and freight (“CIF”), or delivered duty paid (“DDP”) price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including domestic inland freight (plant/warehouse to port of exit), international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, brokerage and handling, and clearing house agent (“CHA”) expenses.

Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP shall be increased by among other things, “the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.” The Department determines that an adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can demonstrate: (1) that the “import duty and rebate are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another;” and (2) “the company claiming the adjustment can show that there were sufficient imports of the imported raw materials to account for the drawback received on the exported product.” Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999).

Ambica claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on its participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. The Department finds that Ambica has not provided substantial evidence on the record to meet the requirement for the first prong of the two-prong test, by establishing the necessary link between the import duty and the reported duty drawback. Therefore, because Ambica has failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying Ambica's request for a duty drawback adjustment for the preliminary results. See Memorandum from Team to the File “ Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Ambica Steels Limited, ” dated July 17, 2007 (“ Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum ”).

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), we compared Ambica's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on Ambica's reported home market and U.S. sales quantities, we determine that the volume of aggregate home market sales during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we find that Ambica had a viable home market. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were made at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), 2 including selling functions, 3 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 4 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Ambica reported that its customer base in the home market consists of processors, and in the U.S. market, it consists of distributors. See December 28, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response (“SQR”) at Annexure C (“Selling Functions Chart”). In addition, Ambica has reported two channels of distribution in the home market and one channel distribution in the U.S. market. See December 28, 2006 SQR at 6. In the first channel of distribution in the home market, Ambica made sales directly to its home market customers from the factory. In the second channel of distribution in the home market, Ambica made sales directly to its home market customers via Ambica's distribution warehouses. In Ambica's single channel of distribution to the U.S. market, Ambica made sales directly to its customer.

Ambica reported a single LOT in both the home market and the U.S. market, and has not requested an LOT adjustment. Ambica stated that an LOT adjustment is not applicable because Ambica does not make any additional efforts for sales to either export markets or in the domestic market. See November 29, 2006 section B questionnaire response at 21, November 29, 2006 section C questionnaire response at 22; see also May 11, 2007 section A, B, C and D SQR at 17-18.

We examined the information reported by Ambica regarding the type and level of selling functions performed, and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which, for instance, sales process/marketing support, freight/delivery, inventory maintenance, and quality assurance/warranty service varied with respect to the different customer categories and channels of distribution ( i.e. , distributors and processors) across the markets.

We preliminary find the LOTs for the home market channels of distribution similar with regard to sales and marketing, and quality assurance/warranty service. We note some differences with regard to freight and warehousing in the home market channels of distribution and intend to issue a supplemental questionnaire to Ambica to further clarify the extent of the selling activities in these particular selling functions. However, based on the current record of this proceeding, for purposes of these preliminary results, we consider the home market to constitute a single LOT. We compared the U.S. LOT to the LOT reported for sales in the home market. We found the LOT in the United States to be similar to the LOT in the home market. Thus, we preliminarily have compared U.S. sales to home market sales at the same LOT.

As discussed above, the petitioners provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales by Ambica in the home market had been made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act and we initiated a sales below cost investigation on January 23, 2007. See Sales Below Cost Memorandum .

We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign-like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, interest expenses, and the cost of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

Ambica reported its costs based on the period January through June 2006, rather than the POR (February 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006). We have relied on Ambica's submission for these preliminary results, but we intend to seek Ambica's POR costs in a supplemental questionnaire.

We made the following adjustment to Ambica's reported cost:

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. If so, we disregard the below-cost sales.

We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Ambica's home market sales were at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. See sections 773 (b)(2)(B), (C), and (D). Therefore, we disregarded these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

We relied on Ambica's submitted home market sales information, except for the following adjustment:

We are not making any adjustment for discounting charges, bank commissions, and postal charges that Ambica may have paid on letter of credit sales in the home market. Ambica has not requested an adjustment for these expenses for the preliminary results and the supporting documentation provided by Ambica at Annexure E of the May 2, 2007 SQR does not tie to the home market sales database. We will address this issue further in a supplemental questionnaire.

We calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made adjustments for packing expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made adjustments, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight from plant to the distribution warehouse, warehouse expenses, inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the customer, and inland insurance. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales ( i.e. , imputed credit expenses (offset by the addition of interest revenue), and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( i.e. , imputed credit expenses, commissions, and fumigation expenses). See Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.

We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3). The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review within 90 days from the issuance of these preliminary results.

If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Ambica will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India , 59 FR 66915, (December 28, 1994). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 702-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 07-00001.” A summary of the application follows.

Applicant: East International Holdings, LLC. (“EIH”), 3411 Ellamont Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21215.

Contact: Alfred M. Nkere, Chief Executive Officer, Telephone: (443) 622-9421.

Application No.: 07-00001.

Date Deemed Submitted: July 12, 2007.

Members (in addition to applicant): None.

EIH seeks a Certificate to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations.

All Products.

All Services.

Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, that relate to Products and Services.

Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations.

The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, Applicant, subject to the terms and conditions listed below, may:

a. Provide and/or arrange for the provisions of Export Trade Facilitation Services;

b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients;

c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets;

d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets;

e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights;

f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers;

g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets;

h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and

i. Enter into contracts for shipping.

2. Applicant and individual Suppliers may regularly exchange information on a one-on-one basis regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules in order that the availability of Products for export can be determined and effectively coordinated by Applicant with its distributors in Export Markets.

1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, Applicant will not intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier any information about any other Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that is not already generally available to the trade or public.

2. Applicant will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities, and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standard of Section 303(a) of the act.

1. “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights.

The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. , allows the entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the IDCP and obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS will review the affirmative finding and determine whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with IDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.

An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP.

As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Mexico or obtained from the IATTC and the Department of State and has determined that Mexico has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an annual affirmative finding renewal.

After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued the Government of Mexico's annual affirmative finding renewal, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by Mexican-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico's affirmative finding will remain valid through March 31, 2010, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.

The HMSMT/HMSAS work sessions will discuss the latest North Pacific albacore stock assessment, preparation of the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, HMS exempted fishing permit issues, electronic logbooks, Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization implementation, international fisheries issues, management concepts for the high seas shallow-set longline fishery, research on the use of lightsticks in longline fisheries, and research and data related issues.

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

The 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.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ) and threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( O. mykiss ).

CDPR requests a 5-year permit (10017) for take of adult and juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and Central California Coast steelhead to assess salmonid population distribution, abundance, and habitat in San Gregorio Creek, Pomponio Creek, and Pescadero Creek watersheds in San Mateo County, California. The research particularly seeks to identify the cause of annual fish die-off events in Pescadero Lagoon and recommend habitat restoration actions to prevent future fish die-off events from occurring. CDPR requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 12 adult Central California Coast coho salmon and 75 adult Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than a single (1) individual adult Central California Coast steelhead unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine, weir-trap, or dip-net), anesthetizing, handling, fin-clipping, scale-sampling, passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tagging, visible implant elastomer (VIE)-tagging, and release of fish. CDPR requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 40 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, with no more than 5 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine, fyke-net trap, electrofishing, or dip-net), handling, and release of fish; and an estimated annual non-lethal take of 1,520 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 7 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine, fyke-net trap, electrofishing, or dip-net), anesthetizing, handling, fin-clipping, scale-sampling, PIT-tagging, VIE-tagging, and release of fish. In the event of any future fish die-off events in Pescadero Lagoon, CDPR also requests authorization for an estimated annual take of 5 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead carcasses (previously dead individuals) and an estimated annual lethal-take of 5 sick or injured juvenile Central California Coast steelhead to be lethally sacrificed for pathology analysis.

The full funding opportunity announcement for the PSIC grant cycle is available through www.grants.gov or by contacting the PSIC website at: www.ntia.doc.gov/psic.

The PSIC Grant Program will assist public safety agencies in the acquisition of, deployment of, or training for the use of interoperable communications systems that utilize—or enable interoperability with communications systems that can utilize—reallocated public safety spectrum in the 700 Megahertz (MHz) frequency band. While some regions may not be able to access the 700 MHz frequency band until 2009, public safety agencies are still eligible for funding to help meet their interoperability needs so long as the proposed solutions are designed to interoperate with the 700 MHz band in the future. NTIA is seeking solutions from public safety agencies that (1) Achieve meaningful and measurable improvements in the state of interoperability for public safety communications and (2) fill interoperability gaps identified in the Statewide Plans.

NTIA recognizes that many solutions exist to achieve interoperability, and the PSIC Grant Program will not dictate a specific technology solution for public safety agencies. However, NTIA has identified the following technology and all hazards related priorities that States and Territories must consider when selecting projects for PSIC funding:

1. Technology

a. Adopt advanced technological solutions

b. Improve spectrum efficiency

c. Use cost-effective measures

2. All Hazards Mitigation

a. Improve communications in areas at high risk for natural disasters

b. Continue to improve interoperability efforts in urban and metropolitan areas at high risk for threats of terrorism

The PSIC Grant Program will make $968,385,000 available in grant awards. The table below identifies available PSIC funding for each State and Territory:

PSIC grants are authorized by Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, and Section 4 of the Call Home Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-459.

11.555, Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program

To apply for and receive a PSIC grant, an applicant must be one of the 56 States and Territories. The Governor of each State has designated a State Administrative Agent (SAA), which can apply for and administer the funds under the PSIC Grant Program. The SAA is the only agency eligible to apply for PSIC funds. Additionally, the SAA is the grantee in the management and administration of all funds provided through this award. The SAA is responsible for obligating PSIC funds to eligible pass-through recipients. A recipient must be a public safety agency that is a State, local, or tribal government entity or nongovernmental organization authorized by such entity, whose sole or principal purpose is to protect safety of life, health, or property.

Eligible applicants must follow the three steps to apply for PSIC funds: submit an application and brief narrative, submit a Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (Statewide Plan), and submit Investment Justification(s). The first step includes submitting an application on Grants.gov. NTIA and DHS program staff will review each application for completeness and adherence to PSIC program rules. Applications will be approved by the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Department of Commerce, and PSIC funds will be awarded no later than September 30, 2007. The second step includes submitting a Statewide Plan, as required by Section I.C.5 of the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program Guidance and Application Kit. Each State and Territory must submit its final Statewide Plan by November 1, 2007. The Statewide Plan will be reviewed by peer and subject matter expert groups and approved by the Department of Homeland Security. NTIA will also review each Statewide Plan to ensure that States and Territories address the three PSIC requirements set forth below. The third step includes submitting Investment Justification(s), which must be submitted by November 1, 2007. The Investment Justifications are to be submitted in conjunction with final Statewide Plans to the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) Secure Portal at https://odp.esportals.com. The Investment Justification(s) will also be reviewed by peer and subject matter expert groups as well as NTIA and DHS program staff. Based on the recommendations of the peer and subject matter expert groups and NTIA and DHS program staff, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, will approve Investment Justifications. If the peer review and subject matter groups include any non-federal employees no consensus advice will be provided by the groups. The applications and Investment Justification(s) are information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under their respective OMB control numbers. See heading entitled Paperwork Reduction Act below.

NTIA recognizes that many solutions exist to achieve interoperability, and the PSIC Grant Program will not dictate the technology or approach for public safety agencies. However, NTIA has identified that when selecting projects for PSIC funding States and Territories must consider: (1) Technology, including adoption of advanced technological solutions, improved spectrum efficiency, and cost effective measures; and (2) solutions that support capabilities in response to all hazards approach regardless of their source or cause, including improving communications in areas at high risk for natural disasters and in urban and metropolitan areas at high risk for threats of terrorism.

In addition, NTIA will review each Statewide Plan to ensure that States and Territories address the following three PSIC requirements: How public safety agencies will acquire, deploy, and train on communications systems that use—or enable interoperability with communications systems that use—the public safety spectrum in the 700 megahertz frequency band; how local and tribal government entities' interoperable communications needs have been included in the planning process and how their needs are being addressed, if applicable; and how authorized nongovernmental organizations' interoperable communications needs have been included in the planning process and how their needs are being addressed, if applicable.

The PSIC Grant Program requires cost sharing. By statute, each public safety agency receiving PSIC funds is required to meet and document the 20 percent statutory match requirement for each project. The SAA is required to track and report the 20 percent match requirement for each individual project that receives PSIC funds for efforts other than training, which do not require any match. The match requirements can be met through cash or in-kind sources consistent with 15 CFR §§ 24.3, 24.24. This documentation must demonstrate that match funds are from non-federal sources. As provided in 48 U.S.C. § 1469a, the matching requirement does not apply to the first $200,000 in grant funds awarded to the Territorial governments in Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Training activities are excluded from this match requirement; however, training activities can make up no more than 20 percent of a State's or Territory's total investments.

This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 7 CFR Part 3015, subpart V.

The SAA must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with the PSIC application. This number is a required field within Grants.gov and for CCR Registration. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps necessary to obtain one as soon as possible. (Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-800-333-0505 or via the Internet (www.dunandbradstreet.com).

In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, 424D, and SF-LLL has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0042, and 0348-0046. The Investment Justification is an element required under Standard Form 424A and has been approved by OMB under control number 0348-0044.

This rule has been determined to be Economically Significant under Executive Order 12866. NTIA was directed by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to implement the PSIC Grant Program. The Act authorized NTIA to implement a grant program to assist public safety agencies in the acquisition of, deployment of, or training for the use of interoperable communications systems that utilize reallocated public safety spectrum for radio communications. The PSIC Grant Program will make $968,385,000 (2007) available in grant awards. This is a one-time transfer program where funds will be awarded no later than September 30, 2007.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this rule concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq .) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

NTIA has submitted this final rule to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq . The rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the Act because it will result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. The rule sets out the administrative procedures for making grants to State, local, tribal and other public safety agencies to improve their communications interoperability in response to manmade and natural disasters. NTIA will award $968,385,000 available in grants under this program.

NTIA serves as the President' principal adviser on telecommunications and information policies and its mission includes assisting the Executive Branch in the development of policies and standards related to interoperability, spectrum use, and emergency readiness. 1 Improving public safety interoperable communications for our nation's first responders has increasingly become a national priority in the wake of terrorism incidents, including 9/11, and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. 2

Consistent with that objective, Congress enacted and the President signed into law on February 8, 2006, the Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005, Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Among other things, this statute makes available analog television spectrum available for new communications services, including public safety interoperable communications in the 700 MHz band, by terminating television licenses in these frequencies on February 17, 2009. In addition, the Act requires the returned analog television spectrum be auctioned and the proceeds used to fund various new programs to promote the digital television transition, to improve public safety interoperable communications, and to reduce the deficit.

Specifically, Section 3006 of the Act directs NTIA to establish and implement a $1 billion grant program to assist public safety agencies in the acquisition of, deployment of, or training for the use of interoperable communications systems that utilize, or enable interoperability with communications systems that can utilize, reallocated public safety spectrum for radio communications in the 700 MHz band. To spur the rapid distribution of these grant funds to our nation's first responders, the Act authorizes NTIA to borrow the funds needed for the grants as of October 1, 2006, well in advance of the receipt of auction proceeds. To further ensure the swift award of these grants to public safety agencies, Congress subsequently enacted and the President signed into law on December 22, 2006, the Call Home Act of 2006. Section 4 of this statute requires NTIA to make grant awards no later than September 30, 2007.

A 60-day delay in implementing this final rule would hamper NTIA's mission to improve public safety interoperable communications and be contrary to clear Congressional intent as expressed in Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act and Section 4 of the Call Home Act. If NTIA is not able to implement this program and make awards under this program before September 30, 2007, the $1 billion may not be available after September 30, 2007 for NTIA to fulfill its statutory mandate. In order for NTIA to comply with this statutory mandate, eligible entities must submit applications no later than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Thus, in compliance with section 808(2) of the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. § 808(2), for good cause, NTIA finds that notice and public comment on this final rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, this final rule is effective on July 23, 2007.

Part 28 of the FAR contains guidance related to obtaining financial protection against damages under Government contracts ( e.g. , use of bonds, bid guarantees, insurance etc.). Part 52 contains the texts of solicitation provisions and contract clauses. These regulations implement a statutory requirement for information to be provided by Federal contractors relating to payment bonds furnished under construction contracts which are subject to the Miller Act (40 USC 270a-270d). This collection requirement is mandated by Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (P.L. 102-190), as amended by Section 2091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-335). The clause at 52.228-12, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, implements Section 806(a)(3) of P.L. 102-190, as amended, which specifies that, upon the request of a prospective subcontractor or supplier offering to furnish labor or material for the performance of a construction contract for which a payment bond has been furnished to the United States pursuant to the Miller Act, the contractor shall promptly provide a copy of such payment bond to the requestor.

In conjunction with performance bonds, payment bonds are used in Government construction contracts to secure fulfillment of the contractor's obligations under the contract and to assure that the contractor makes all payments, as required by law, to persons furnishing labor or material in performance of the contract. This regulation provides prospective subcontractors and suppliers a copy of the payment bond furnished by the contractor to the Government for the performance of a Federal construction contract subject to the Miller Act. It is expected that prospective subcontractors and suppliers will use this information to determine whether to contract with that particular prime contractor. This information has been and will continue to be available from the Government. The requirement for contractors to provide a copy of the payment bond upon request to any prospective subcontractor or supplier under the Federal construction contract is contained in Section 806(a)(3) of P.L. 102-190, as amended by Sections 2091 and 8105 of P.L. 103-355.

Respondents: 12,698.

Responses Per Respondent: 5.

Total Responses: 63,490.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 15,872.50.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0135, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, in all correspondence.

The U.S. Marine Corps' records system notices for records systems 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 U.S. Marine Corps proposes to delete a system of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes to the system of records are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports.

The U.S. Marine Corps' records systems notices for records systems 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 U.S. Marine Corps proposes to delete three systems of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes to the system of records are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports.

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Navy 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 specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Navy 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 specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Background

GTCC LLW is defined by NRC in 10 CFR 72.3 as “low-level radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste in 10 CFR 61.55.” In 10 CFR 61.55, the NRC defines classes of LLW as A, B and C by the concentration of specific short- and long-lived radionuclides, with Class C LLW having the highest radionuclide concentration limits. Consistent with NRC's and DOE's authorities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), the NRC LLW radioactive waste classification system does not apply to radioactive wastes generated or owned by DOE and disposed of at DOE facilities. However, DOE owns and generates LLW and transuranic radioactive waste with characteristics similar to GTCC LLW and that may not have a path to disposal. For the purposes of this EIS, DOE is referring to this DOE waste as GTCC-like waste (the use of the term “GTCC-like” does not have the intent or effect of creating a new classification of radioactive waste). DOE proposes to evaluate alternatives for the disposal of both GTCC LLW and DOE GTCC-like waste in this EIS.

Section 3(b)(1)(D) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) assigns the responsibility for the disposal of GTCC LLW to the Federal Government. The LLRWPAA specifies that the GTCC LLW covered under Section 3(b)(1)(D) is to be disposed of in a facility licensed and determined to be adequate by the NRC. DOE is the federal agency responsible for the disposal of GTCC LLW. This responsibility was described in a 1987 report to Congress, Recommendations for Management of Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Waste (DOE/NE-0077), U.S. Department of Energy, February 1987. The report can be obtained by contacting the Document Manager listed under ADDRESSES above or from the Web site at http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov.

The September 11, 2001, attacks and subsequent threats have heightened concerns that terrorists could gain possession of radiological sealed sources, including GTCC LLW sealed sources, and use them for malevolent purposes. Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued three reports on matters related to the security of uncontrolled sealed sources, including the Department's progress in developing a GTCC LLW disposal facility. 1 In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains several provisions (e.g., sections 631, 651, and 957) directed at improving the control of sealed sources, including disposal availability.

Because of its technical expertise in radiation protection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS. NRC will be a commenting agency.

Section 631 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of Energy to: provide Congress with notification of the DOE office with responsibility for completing activities needed to provide for safe disposal of GTCC LLW; submit a report to Congress containing an estimate of the cost and schedule to complete an EIS and record of decision (ROD) for a permanent disposal facility for GTCC LLW; and prior to making a final decision on the disposal alternative or alternatives to be implemented, submit to Congress a report that describes all alternatives considered in the EIS. In meeting these requirements thus far, DOE has named the Office of Environmental Management as the lead organization having responsibility to develop GTCC LLW disposal capability and has submitted a report to Congress dated July 2006 on the estimated cost and proposed schedule to complete the EIS.

GTCC LLW may generally be categorized into the following three types: sealed sources, activated metals, and other miscellaneous waste (e.g., contaminated equipment). Sealed sources are typically small, high-activity radioactive materials encapsulated in closed metal containers. They are used for a variety of purposes including irradiating food and medical products for sterilization, detecting flaws and failures in pipelines and metal welds, calculating moisture content in soil and other materials, and assisting in the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses.

Activated metal wastes are primarily generated in nuclear reactors during facility modifications and decommissioning. There are 104 operating commercial reactors in the United States and an additional 18 that have been closed or decommissioned. The activated metals consist of internal nuclear components that have become radioactive from neutron absorption. These components include portions of the reactor vessel and other stainless steel components near the fuel assemblies.

Other miscellaneous waste includes all GTCC LLW that is not activated metals or sealed sources. This waste includes contaminated equipment, debris, trash, scrap metal and decontamination and decommissioning waste from miscellaneous industrial activities, such as the manufacture of sealed sources and laboratory research.

DOE GTCC-like waste includes some sealed sources owned or generated by DOE activities; activated metals including reflector materials from research reactors as well as other miscellaneous waste owned by DOE or generated by DOE activities that has characteristics similar to GTCC LLW and may not have a path to disposal. Most of the DOE GTCC-like waste consists of transuranic waste  2 (a DOE waste category) that may have originated from non-defense activities and therefore may not be authorized for disposal at WIPP under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 and has no other currently identified path to disposal.

DOE estimates a total inventory (existing and projected to be generated) of approximately 2,600 cubic meters of GTCC LLW and approximately 3,000 cubic meters of GTCC-like waste. A small percentage of this waste is mixed waste (i.e., radioactive waste that contains a hazardous component subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). Table 1 shows estimated quantities of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste that DOE proposes to analyze and is based on the report entitled Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Inventory Estimates , (DOE, July 2007). This report updates the 1993 inventory estimates contained in the report entitled Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Characterization: Estimated Volumes, Radionuclides, Activities, and Other Characteristics, DOE/LLW-114, Revision 1 (Sept. 1994), which served as the basis for inventories in the ANOI. Copies of both reports are available by contacting the Document Manager listed under ADDRESSES above or at http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov.

As shown in Table 1, NRC and Agreement State licensees have generated and continue to generate GTCC LLW for which there is no permitted disposal facility. DOE is responsible for the safe and secure disposal of GTCC LLW covered under Section 3(b)(1)(D) of the LLRWPAA, including determining how and where to dispose of these wastes. In addition, DOE owns or generates certain LLW and transuranic wastes with characteristics similar to GTCC LLW that also may not have an identified path to disposal.

DOE proposes to construct and operate a new facility or facilities, or use an existing facility, for the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste. DOE would then close the facility or facilities at the end of each facility's operational life. Based on the EIS analysis, DOE expects to make a decision on the method(s) and location(s) for disposing of GTCC LLW and DOE GTCC-like waste. A combination of disposal methods and locations may be appropriate based on the characteristics of the waste and other factors.

The GTCC EIS will evaluate the range of reasonable alternatives for the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste, together with a no action alternative. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) define GTCC LLW as that waste which would require disposal in a geologic repository as defined in 10 CFR Part 60 or 63, unless proposals for an alternative method of disposal are approved by NRC under 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv). Although NRC regulations state that GTCC LLW is generally not acceptable for near surface-disposal, the NRC recognizes in 10 CFR 61.7(b)(5) that “there may be some instances where waste with concentrations greater than permitted for Class C waste would be acceptable for near-surface disposal with special processing or design.” Therefore, the disposal methods DOE proposes to evaluate in the EIS include deep geologic repository disposal, intermediate depth borehole disposal, and enhanced near-surface disposal.

For deep geologic disposal, DOE intends to analyze disposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a proposed geologic repository to be licensed under 10 CFR Part 63. DOE will also evaluate deep geologic repository disposal at WIPP in New Mexico. Identification of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for analysis in the EIS is based on the 10 CFR 61.55 regulations, which identify disposal in a geologic repository licensed under 10 CFR Part 60 or 63 as an acceptable method for the disposal of GTCC LLW. Identification of WIPP is based on its characteristics as a geologic repository, although not subject to NRC licensing as a geologic repository under 10 CFR Parts 60 or 63. DOE does not plan to evaluate an additional deep geologic repository facility because siting of another deep geologic repository facility for GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste is impractical due to the cost, time, and the relatively small volume of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste.

DOE also intends to evaluate disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste in a new intermediate depth borehole facility and enhanced-near surface facility at existing DOE sites and generic commercial locations. The DOE sites considered for analysis include INL in Idaho, LANL in New Mexico, WIPP vicinity (either within the WIPP Land Withdrawal perimeter that is under the jurisdiction of DOE, or on government property in the vicinity of WIPP), NTS in Nevada, SRS in South Carolina, ORR in Tennessee, and Hanford in Washington. Identification of these sites for potential analysis is based on mission compatibility (these DOE sites currently have waste disposal operations as part of their mission) and physical characteristics of the sites such as hydrogeology and topography.

In addition, DOE intends to evaluate a generic enhanced near surface and intermediate depth borehole commercial disposal facility under both arid and humid conditions in the EIS. In a Request for Information in the FedBizOpps on July 1, 2005, DOE solicited technical capability statements from commercial vendors that may be interested in constructing and operating a GTCC waste disposal facility. Although several commercial vendors expressed an interest, no vendors have provided specific information on disposal locations and methods for analysis in the EIS. Including a generic commercial facility in the EIS would allow DOE to make a programmatic determination regarding disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste in such a facility. Should one or more commercial facilities be identified at a later time, DOE would conduct further NEPA review, as appropriate.

DOE intends to evaluate each of the GTCC waste types ( i.e. , sealed sources, activated metals, and other waste) individually and in combination for each of the disposal alternatives, taking into account the characteristics of the waste types and other considerations (e.g., waste volumes, physical and radiological characteristics, and generation rates). For example, GTCC LLW containing transuranic radionuclides with longer half-lives may require greater isolation or other special measures to protect against potential inadvertent human intrusion, whereas GTCC LLW containing radionuclides with shorter half-lives may require less extensive measures. DOE will also consider volumes and time periods when wastes would be generated and require disposal.

In the GTCC LLW EIS, DOE will describe the statutory and regulatory requirements for each disposal alternative and whether legislation or regulatory modifications may be needed to implement the alternative under consideration. In summary, DOE proposes to evaluate the alternatives listed below:

Alternative 1: No Action—under this alternative, current and future GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste would be stored at designated locations consistent with ongoing practices, such as storage of GTCC LLW activated metals at nuclear utilities;

Alternative 2: Disposal in a Geologic Repository at WIPP—under this alternative, DOE would dispose of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste at WIPP;

Alternative 3: Disposal in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain—under this alternative, DOE would dispose of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste at the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository;

Alternative 4: Disposal at a New Enhanced Near-Surface Facility—under this alternative, DOE would dispose of GTCC LLW or GTCC-like waste at a new enhanced near-surface facility at INL, LANL, WIPP vicinity, NTS, SRS, ORR, and Hanford, or a commercial facility should such a facility be identified in the future;

Alternative 5: Disposal at a New Intermediate Depth Borehole Facility—under this alternative, DOE would dispose of GTCC LLW or GTCC-like waste at a new intermediate depth borehole facility at INL, LANL, WIPP vicinity, NTS, SRS, ORR and Hanford, or a commercial facility should such a facility be identified in the future.

DOE proposes to evaluate disposal technologies at various DOE and generic commercial locations for the construction, operation, and closure of a facility or facilities for the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste. DOE proposes to address the issues listed below in the process of considering the potential impacts of the proposed disposal alternatives.

• Potential impacts on air, noise, surface water and groundwater.

• Potential impacts from the shipment of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste to the disposal site(s).

• Potential impacts from postulated accidents.

• Potential impacts on human health, including impacts to involved and non-involved site workers and members of the public.

• Potential impacts to historical and cultural artifacts or sites of historical and cultural significance.

• Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low income and minority populations (environmental justice).

• Potential Native American concerns.

• Short-term and long-term land use impacts.

• Long-term site suitability, including erosion and seismicity.

• Potential impacts to endangered species.

• Intentional destructive acts.

• Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

• Irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources.

• Cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions.

This list is not intended to be inclusive, and we invite interested parties to suggest other issues to be considered, including aspects of the waste inventories presented in Table 1.

In 2005, DOE issued an ANOI, 70 Fed. Reg. 24775 (May 11, 2005), inviting the public to provide preliminary comments on the potential scope of the EIS. DOE received comments on the ANOI from: the states of Nevada, Oregon and Washington; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District; the New England Coalition; the Sierra Club; the Nuclear Energy Institute; and the Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board. The major scoping issues identified in the comments are summarized below, along with DOE's response.

• EIS General Scope: Commenters questioned the need for the EIS, assuming that GTCC LLW would be disposed of in the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Some commenters favored the inclusion of DOE's GTCC-like waste along with GTCC LLW generated from NRC-licensed activities in the EIS, while other commenters recommended restricting the scope of the EIS to GTCC LLW analyzed in the Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE/EIS-0250, February 2002) or to waste generated from NRC-licensed activities. Still other commenters questioned the basis for projecting the GTCC LLW volume to 2035 and 2055.

Response: GTCC waste is LLW, not high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel; nevertheless, DOE has identified the proposed Yucca Mountain repository as one of the sites to be analyzed in the EIS for GTCC LLW as a disposal alternative, as well as other appropriate sites, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61. Under the LLRWPAA, DOE is responsible for disposing of this waste, and because such disposal would be a major federal action, DOE is required by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement NEPA to complete an EIS analyzing the range of reasonable alternatives for this action. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also requires DOE to take actions related to the preparation of an EIS for GTCC LLW. DOE plans to include its GTCC-like waste that may have no path to disposal, as well as waste generated from NRC or Agreement State licensed activities, and to identify where economies of scale may be achieved in using the same disposal methods and locations.

DOE has identified the estimated GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste volumes based on the best available data. DOE has changed the projections to 2035 and 2062 to include the 20-year license renewal that commercial reactors may receive plus an additional 6-year “cooling period” before commencing reactor decommissioning activities. Thus GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste estimates are projected through 2035, except for GTCC LLW activated metals estimates, which are projected through 2062, based on anticipated nuclear reactor decommissioning schedules.

• Waste Disposal Alternatives: Commenters stated that DOE should identify its criteria for including sites considered in the EIS as potential disposal locations and criteria for selecting the technologies and disposal methods to be evaluated.

Response: DOE has identified its basis for the disposal locations and disposal methods proposed for analysis in the EIS under “Alternatives Proposed for Evaluation” in this Notice.

• Waste Inventories: Commenters stated that the inventory data provided in the ANOI should be updated.

Response: DOE has updated the inventory data as shown in Table 1. DOE will incorporate other appropriate inventory data that may become available during preparation of the EIS.

• Resource Areas Proposed for Analysis: Commenters suggested a number of subjects that DOE should include in the EIS impact analyses.

Response: DOE's list of subjects proposed for evaluation in the EIS under “Identification of Environmental Issues” in this NOI responds to those comments.

• Concentration Averaging: Commenters raised questions about DOE's potential use of “concentration averaging” in which, for example, the activity of one component is averaged over the volume or mass of waste to identify applicable waste classification standards.

Response: For the purposes of analysis in the EIS, DOE would use guidance in the Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, January 1995, to determine when LLW is greater than Class C as defined at according to 10 CFR Part 61.

• Regulatory Requirements: A number of commenters discussed the need to address compliance with regulatory and other legal requirements in the EIS.

Response: The EIS would describe applicable regulatory and other legal requirements and consider the extent to which the alternatives analyzed meet those requirements.

Interested parties are invited to participate in the public scoping process to provide their comments on the proposed disposal alternatives for analysis in the EIS and the environmental issues to be analyzed. The scoping process is intended to involve all interested agencies (federal, state, county, and local), public interest groups, Native American tribes, businesses, and members of the public. Public scoping meetings will be held at the following locations and times:

• Carlsbad, New Mexico: Pecos River Village Conference Center, Carousel House, 711 Muscatel Avenue, Carlsbad, New Mexico, Monday, August 13, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Los Alamos, New Mexico: Hilltop House Best Western, La Vista Room, 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Oak Ridge, Tennessee: DOE Oak Ridge Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Wednesday, August 22, 6 p.m.—9 p.m.

• North Augusta, South Carolina: North Augusta Community Center, 495 Brookside Avenue, North Augusta, South Carolina, Thursday, August 23, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Troutdale, Oregon: Comfort Inn & Suites-Columbia Gorge West, 477 NW Phoenix Drive, Troutdale, Oregon, Monday, August 27, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Pasco, Washington: Red Lion Hotel, Gold Room, 2525 N 20th Avenue, Pasco, Washington, Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Idaho Falls, Idaho: Red Lion Hotel On The Falls, Yellowstone/Teton Rooms, 475 River Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Thursday, August 30, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Las Vegas, Nevada: Atomic Testing Museum, 755 E. Flamingo Road (Just East of Paradise Road), Las Vegas, Nevada, Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.

• Washington DC: Hotel Washington, Washington Room, 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Monday, September 10, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.

During the first hour of each scoping meeting, DOE officials will be available for informal discussions with attendees. During the formal part of the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments orally or in writing. The presiding officer will establish procedures to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has a chance to do so. Both oral and written comments will be considered and given equal weight.

Under the NWPA, DOE is responsible for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. In particular, under Section 180(c) of the NWPA, DOE is responsible for providing technical and financial assistance for training of local public safety officials to States and Indian Tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. Section 180(c) further provides that such training cover procedures required for both safe routine transportation of these materials and for dealing with emergency response situations. Section 180(c) identifies the Nuclear Waste Fund as the source of funds for this assistance.

DOE has announced a schedule to begin shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility in 2017. 1 Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, DOE plans to conduct a pilot program for 180(c) grants beginning in fiscal year 2008. DOE will evaluate public comments received on this revised proposed policy prior to implementing the pilot program. After review of the comments received on this revised proposed policy and completion of the pilot program, DOE plans to issue a new revised proposed policy for public comment and thereafter to issue a final policy prior to awarding the first 180(c) grants. The first grants are planned to be issued approximately four years prior to the commencement of shipments through a State or Tribe's jurisdiction to support assessing the need for and planning for training.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Strategic Plan for the Safe Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain: A Guide to Stakeholder Interactions calls for DOE to work closely with State Regional Groups and individual impacted States and Tribes as it makes operational decisions regarding shipments to an NWPA-authorized facility. The DOE's practice of involving States, Tribes, industry, utilities, and other interested parties in transportation planning has contributed to a decades-long record of safely transporting such material. This revised proposed policy supports the DOE's OCRWM objective to develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive national spent fuel transportation plan that accommodates State, local, and Tribal concerns and input to the greatest extent practicable.

On January 3, 1995, DOE issued a proposed policy on how it would implement Section 180(c) of the NWPA (60 FR 99). DOE subsequently issued several notices relating to its proposed 180(c) policy in the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793), May 16, 1996 (61 FR 24772), July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38272), and April 30, 1998 (63 FR 23753). DOE is publishing this Notice of Revised Proposed Policy to set forth and communicate to stakeholders the revised policy by which DOE currently intends to implement Section 180(c). DOE previously requested comments on the 1998 Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Those comments were reviewed and considered during the development of this revised proposed policy.

As part of its longstanding commitment to work with stakeholders on transportation matters, DOE has engaged in ongoing discussions on how to implement Section 180(c). Such discussions have taken place in the context of the Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group, which is comprised of representatives of State, Tribal, and local governments, and professional, technical, and industry associations, and which meets biannually to identify and discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials. In 2004, DOE formed a TEC Topic Group specifically to discuss Section 180(c) issues, and the Topic Group met at least monthly from June 2004 through November 2005. In addition, DOE has discussed Section 180(c) issues with the six national and regional organizations with which DOE has cooperative agreements. These agreements enable DOE to exchange information and solicit input regarding the planned transportation activities of OCRWM, including Section 180(c) activities. These organizations comprise the four State Regional Groups (the Southern States Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy Board, Council of State Governments Midwestern Office, and Council of State Governments Eastern Regional Conference), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Through the TEC Section 180(c) Topic Group, discussions with the national and regional organizations described above, and other stakeholder interactions, DOE received valuable comments and views on 180(c) issues which have been considered in the development of this revised proposed policy. The Topic Group reached significant agreement on eligibility requirements and timing of the grants and allowable uses of the funding.

This policy is intended to be consistent with Homeland Security Presidential Directives Number 5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” issued February 28, 2003, and Number 8, “National Preparedness,” issued December 17, 2003; the Department of Homeland Security's National Preparedness Goal, issued December 2005; the National Preparedness Guidance issued April 27, 2005; the National Incident Management System, issued March 1, 2004; and the National Response Plan, issued December 2004.

Section 180(c) of the NWPA states:

This proposed policy addresses the provision of technical and financial assistance for training, both for normal transportation operations and for potential incidents that may require emergency response during shipments of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. Technical assistance to support 180(c) activities will consist of non-monetary assistance that the Secretary of Energy can provide from DOE's specific knowledge, expertise, and existing resources to aid training of public safety officials on procedures for safe routine transportation and for emergency response situations during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. Technical assistance includes, but is not limited to, access to DOE's regional and Headquarters representatives involved in the planning and operation of NWPA transportation or emergency preparedness activities, provision of information packets that include materials about the OCRWM Program and shipments, and provision of other training materials and information. Financial assistance will consist of assessment and planning grants and annual training grants. The provision of grants will be subject to the criteria described herein, as well as the availability of appropriated funds.

This revised proposed policy is consistent with DOE's longstanding commitment to meet or exceed requirements and standards applicable to the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; to cooperate with States, Tribes, and local governments; and to make use of the existing expertise of States, Tribes, and local governments to the maximum extent practicable.

Section 180(c) funds are intended to be used for training specific to shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. DOE will work with States and Tribes to evaluate current preparedness for safe routine transportation and emergency response capability and will provide funding as appropriate to ensure that State, Tribal, and local officials are prepared for OCRWM shipments. Section 180(c) funds and related training are intended to supplement but not duplicate existing training for safe routine transportation and emergency preparedness. DOE will work with States and Tribes to coordinate and integrate Section 180(c) activities with existing training programs designed for State, Tribal, and local public safety officials. Equipment purchased with Section 180(c) funds is intended to be used for training to prepare for the specific hazards presented by shipments to an NWPA-authorized facility. If necessary, such equipment could then be used for inspections and for responding to emergencies. Since State and Tribal governments have primary responsibility to protect the public health and safety in their jurisdictions, they will have flexibility to decide which allowable activities to request Section 180(c) assistance to meet their unique needs within the limits of the NWPA and DOE and other Federal financial assistance regulations and restrictions.

Training with Section 180(c) funds should be to the level of detail and to the degree necessary to prepare for shipments to an NWPA-authorized facility. When necessary or appropriate, training should be consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) awareness or operations levels, as those terms are defined in 29 CFR 1910.120, and the jurisdiction's emergency response plans. Any deficiency in basic emergency response capability may be addressed through consultation and technical assistance.

DOE will implement Section 180(c) by funding direct grants to eligible States and Tribes. The grants program will be administered in accordance with the DOE Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR part 600), which implement applicable Office of Management and Budget circulars, and applicable law. The grant application process will require States and Tribes to describe and justify their proposed work in the format of a five-year project with a more detailed two-year work plan. Applications will only be accepted through the Federal government's electronic grant application system at www.grants.gov.

DOE anticipates providing funds to States in accordance with the approach described below. Specifically, DOE expects to make two grants available to States: An assessment and planning grant and an annual training grant. 2

The assessment and planning grant to each eligible State will support an initial needs assessment to identify training needs that might be addressed in future training grants to that State. The amount of the assessment and planning grant is not expected to exceed $200,000, adjusted annually for inflation, for each eligible State based on appropriated funds available for that purpose in a particular fiscal year. The annual training grant to each eligible State will support allowable activities as specified in the grant. The annual training grant for each eligible State will consist of a base amount not expected to exceed $100,000, adjusted annually for inflation, as well as a variable amount. The base amount for each grant depends on Congressional appropriations. DOE selected the amounts of the base grants based on experience with similar training programs and discussions with State and emergency response officials about the scope of work likely for each grant.

The variable amount of the training grant will be determined through a risk-based formula using the factors of population along routes, route miles, number of shipments, and shipping sites. The population figure, calculated from U.S. Census Bureau data, acts as a surrogate for either the number of responders requiring training or the number of jurisdictions requiring training. Total route miles (for all shipping modes) acts as a surrogate for the accident risk. The number of shipments addresses the additional burden placed on States that are heavily impacted by shipments. Finally, the number of shipping sites will factor in the additional training burden placed on States that must prepare for point-of-origin inspections of both the package and the vehicle. Shipping sites will include commercial nuclear power plants, DOE sites, and any other entity shipping spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility.

The amount of the annual training grants will be based on the appropriated funds available for that purpose in a particular fiscal year. Available funds will be first used to fund the base portion of the grant, which would be the same for each eligible State. Remaining available funds will be used to fund the variable portion of the grant for each eligible State on the basis of the following five-step formula.

The steps are as follows:

Step 1: Collect raw data with respect to the factors of population along routes, route miles, number of shipments, and shipping sites for each State.

Step 2: Divide the raw State data for each factor by the national total for each factor. The result is each State's percentage of the national total for each factor.

Step 3: Multiply each State's percentage of each factor by the correspondent weighting for each factor as specified below; the result would be summed to reach a total for each State, as follows:

+ 0.3 × Percentage of Route Miles

+ 0.3 × Percentage of Number of Shipments

+ 0.1 × Percentage of Shipping Sites

= Total for Each State

Step 4: Sum the total for each State to obtain a national total.

Step 5: Divide each State's total by the national total to reach each State's percentage of available funds for the year.

DOE will work with applicants to ensure consistent sources are used to estimate the raw data for each factor of the formula. All factors are specific to the shipping year. The specific sources DOE will use for the raw data are as follows:

• The population factor will be calculated using the population within 2,500 meters of the route as calculated by the Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS), DOE's routing model. TRAGIS uses U.S. Census Bureau data as its source for population.

• For route miles, DOE will calculate the national total using TRAGIS to estimate the route miles for each year's projected shipments.

• The number of shipments annually through a State will be estimated based on DOE's projected shipments for each year.

• The number of shipping sites will be based on the number of defense and civilian sites originating a shipment within the State for the year for which an applicant is applying for funding.

DOE will provide grants and technical assistance to those States and Tribes through whose jurisdictions the Secretary of Energy plans to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. Where a route constitutes a border between two States, a State and a Tribal reservation, or two Tribal reservations, every jurisdiction with emergency response responsibility and inspection authority over the route will be eligible for Section 180(c) assistance. If a State or Tribe will not have shipments but has cross-deputization or mutual aid agreements with a jurisdiction that will have shipments, the non-shipment jurisdiction may work with DOE to receive funding.

DOE will send a letter to the Governor or Tribal leader's office notifying them of their State or Tribe's eligibility to apply for Section 180(c) grants approximately five years before shipments are scheduled through that State or Tribe's jurisdiction. Each State or Tribe shall designate which agency or staff member of the State or Tribe will administer its Section 180(c) grants. Subsequently, DOE will communicate with the State or Tribe's designated agency or staff person regarding Section 180(c) grants.

Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, DOE expects to begin making assessment and planning grants available to a State or Tribe approximately four years prior to the first shipment to an NWPA-authorized facility through that State or Tribe's jurisdiction.

DOE intends to issue training grants in each of the three years prior to a scheduled shipment through a State or Tribe's jurisdiction and every year that shipments are scheduled.

DOE intends to allow a broad array of eligible planning and training activities, thus providing the recipients flexibility to direct funds toward their individual needs. DOE will require applicants to describe and justify the need for proposed activities, training, and purchases in the application package for review and approval by DOE.

Under Section 180(c) of the NWPA, DOE shall provide technical and financial assistance to States and Indian Tribes through whose jurisdictions the DOE plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to an NWPA-authorized facility. States and Tribes should describe in their grant applications how the grants will be used to provide training to local public safety officials. States and Tribes are expected to coordinate with local public safety officials during the assessment and planning phase and in developing their applications for the annual training grants. DOE recognizes that, depending on the State or Tribe, the role of local public safety officials in responding to incidents involving radioactive materials varies from a minimal role of crowd and traffic control to the primary role of incident command. Therefore, the benefit to local public safety officials should be consistent with established State, Tribal, and local roles in dealing with routine transportation and in responding to an incident involving NWPA shipments.

Potential activities for the Assessment and Planning Grant include:

• Assessment of the jurisdiction's needs for training on procedures related to safe routine transportation and emergency response situations.

• Development of mutual aid agreements among neighboring jurisdictions and with Federal agencies.

• Planning for how to provide needed training for public safety officials.

• Participation in DOE, regional, and national transportation planning meetings.

• Intra- and interstate and Tribal planning and coordination.

• Support for exercises to test plans and training.

• Review of DOE transportation, emergency management, communications, and security plans, including threat assessments and civil disobedience/law enforcement planning.

• Obtaining access to DOE data and systems, such as the Transportation Tracking and Communications system (TRANSCOM) for information and shipment tracking.

• Evaluation and identification of alternative routes for DOE non-classified radioactive materials shipments according to 49 CFR 397, Transportation of Hazardous Materials' Driving and Parking Rules (referred to as HM-164).

• Risk assessments.

• Participation in DOE's Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program (TEPP). 3

• Coordination with DOE's Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) training, exercises, and planning activities. 4

• Planning activities using Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) or other DOE route or risk assessment models.

• Participation in carrier evaluation programs that may be implemented through other agencies or organizations.

• Staff costs related to planning and needs assessments.

The Training Grant has two categories of allowable activities: Activities related to safe routine transportation and activities related to emergency response.

Activities for the safe routine transportation aspects of the Training Grant may include:

• Continuation of the activities initiated under the Assessment and Planning Grant, such as coordination with agencies within the State or Tribe, assessment of training needs, and assessment of technical assistance needs.

• Training and staff costs associated with the Department of Transportation's State Rail Safety Participation Program. The Federal Railroad Administration will provide informal outreach and training opportunities to Tribal nations, since there is no statutory authority for participation by Indian Tribes in the State Safety Participation Program as outlined in 49 CFR 212.

• Training for public safety officials in safety and enforcement inspections of highway shipments (drivers, vehicles, and shipping containers).

• Training related to accident prevention (e.g., for safe parking, bad weather, and road conditions).

• Training for appropriate local, State, and Tribal officials on the proper handling of information and documents, including secure and confidential shipments.

• Training for radiological inspections, both rail and truck.

• Training on a satellite tracking system.

• Equipment purchases, calibration, and maintenance for training purposes. 5

• Staff costs related to training.

Activities for the emergency response aspects of the Training Grant may include:

• Continuation of planning activities begun under the Assessment and Planning Grant.

• Training in implementation of mutual aid agreements among neighboring jurisdictions and agreements with Federal agencies.

• Training for public safety officials in hazardous materials emergency response procedures. When necessary or appropriate, training should be consistent with OSHA awareness or operations levels, as those terms are defined in 29 CFR 1910.120, and the jurisdiction's emergency response plans.

• Participation in DOE's TEPP.

• Equipment purchases, calibration, and maintenance for training purposes.

• Training for emergency medical personnel, including hospital emergency medical personnel.

• Designing, conducting, and evaluating drills and exercises, including the implementation of mutual aid agreements and emergency response plans and procedures.

• Staff costs related to training.

States and Tribes will have flexibility to decide for which allowable activities to request Section 180(c) assistance to meet their unique needs within the limits of the NWPA and DOE and other Federal financial assistance regulations and restrictions. Grant applications will be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 600.13, Merit Review.

The merit review process consists of a board of technically qualified reviewers who evaluate each grant application on pre-established criteria. The merit review board advises the DOE's selection officials as to the merits of each proposed activity and the overall quality of the application. The DOE's selection officials will make final funding determinations and notify successful applicants of their award in accordance with standard grant procedures.

The proposed criteria, which the merit review board will use for its review, are described below in Table 1, Assessment and Planning Grant and Table 2, Training Grant. The applicant's narrative should address each of these criteria in accordance with the instructions provided.

DOE requests that interested parties comment on this notice of revised proposed policy, including the specific questions identified below:

(a) Would $200,000 be an appropriate amount for the assessment and planning grant to conduct an initial needs assessment?

(b) Should the amount be the same for each eligible State and Tribe?

(c) Would there be a need to update the initial needs assessment and, if so, at what intervals and should funding be made available for this purpose and in what amount?

(a) Would $100,000 be an appropriate amount for the annual training grant?

(b) Recognizing that, after commencement of shipments through an eligible State or Tribe, training to maintain capability may become less costly with increased expertise and efficiency, should the base amount of subsequent annual training grants be adjusted downward to reflect the number of years that annual training grants have been received?

(c) What should be the allocation of available appropriated funds for a fiscal year between the base amount and the variable amount of the annual training grants?

(d) Should the entire training grant be variable based on the funding allocation formula described herein?

(a) Should the amount of funding be adjusted where a route forms a border between two States, a State and a Tribal reservation, or two Tribal reservations?

(b) Should States or Tribes with mutual aid responsibilities along a route outside their borders be eligible for 180(c) grants on the basis of the mutual aid agreement?

(c) If so, how should the amount of funding be calculated, and should the calculation take into account whether or not the State or Tribe would otherwise be eligible for a grant?

(d) Should the State or Tribe that received notification of eligibility from DOE indicate in their grant application that a neighboring State or Tribe has a mutual aid agreement along a particular route, whereupon DOE would then notify the neighboring State or Tribe of its eligibility?

(a) Do assessment and planning grants need to be undertaken four years prior to an initial scheduled shipment through a State or Tribe's jurisdiction?

(b) Do training grants need to commence three years prior to a scheduled shipment through a State or Tribe's jurisdiction?

(c) Do training grants need to be provided every year that shipments are scheduled?

(a) Should the Section 180(c) grants be adjusted to account for fees levied by States or Tribes on the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste through their jurisdiction?

(b) How should DOE determine if a fee covers all or part of the cost of activities allowed under Section 180(c) grants?

(c) Is the language in this policy, requiring States and Tribes to explain in their grant application how the fees and Section 180(c) grant awards are separate and distinct, sufficient to prevent DOE from paying twice for the same activity?

(a) How should Section 180(c) grants be adjusted to reflect other funding or technical assistance from DOE or other Federal agencies for training for safe routine transportation and emergency response procedures?

(b) In particular, how should DOE account for TEPP and other similar programs that provide funding and/or technical assistance related to transportation of radioactive materials?

(c) To what extent is Section 180(c) funding necessary where funding and/or technical assistance are being or have been provided for other DOE shipping campaigns such as to DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant?

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20532), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment during the comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-0341, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202-566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: Conflict of Interest Rule #1 (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1550.07, OMB Control No. 2030-0023.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA contractors will be required to keep a database of business relationships. EPA contractors will be required to certify annually, or when work is ordered under a contract, that they have no actual or potential conflicts of interest involving the work to be performed under the contract. If an actual or potential conflict of interest is identified, then the contractor must disclose the relevant information to EPA. Under certain contracts, the contractor will be restricted in its future contracting in certain areas. To enter contracts in the restricted area, the contractor must submit a request to EPA with the relevant facts. This information is used by EPA to ensure contractors' work products are objective and unbiased, that contractors render impartial assistance or advice to EPA, and that contractors do not have an unfair competitive advantage. Responses are required to obtain a benefit. 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b. Information received is treated as confidential in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,138 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 135.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 135 .

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 153,626.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $9,561,000, which includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs and $9,561,000 labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 7,986 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase in the number of EPA contracts containing conflict of interest requirements.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0478, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742.

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those who produce or import gasoline containing ethanol, or who wish to obtain a testing exemption.

Title: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline Volatility, Reporting Requirements for Parties Which Produce of Import Gasoline Containing Ethanol, and Reporting Requirements for Parties Seeking a Testing Exemption (40 CFR 80.27) .

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1367.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0178.

ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: Gasoline volatility, as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in pounds per square inch (psi), is controlled in the spring and summer in order to minimize evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles. RVP is subject to a federal standard of 7.8 psi or 9.0 psi, depending on location. The addition of ethanol to gasoline increases the RVP by about 1 psi. Gasoline that contains at least 9 volume percent ethanol is subject to a standard that is 1.0 psi greater. As an aid to industry compliance and EPA enforcement, the product transfer document, which is prepared by the producer or importer and which accompanies a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol, is required by regulation to contain a legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol. This is intended to deter the mixing within the distribution system, particularly in retail storage tanks, of gasoline which contains ethanol with gasoline which does not contain ethanol. Such mixing would likely result in a gasoline with an ethanol concentration of less than 9 volume percent but with an RVP above the standard. Also, a party wishing a testing exemption for research on gasoline that is not in compliance with the applicable volatility standard, must submit certain information to EPA.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 seconds per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents: 2,000.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Average Number of Responses for Each Respondent: 5,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,997.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $0.9 million. This includes an estimated burden cost of $0.9 million and an estimated cost of $20 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is an increase of 7,550 hours in the total estimated annual respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates. The increase is due to an increase in the use of ethanol in gasoline due to the discontinued use of methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline and the renewable fuels requirements which recently took effect.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0019, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are state governments and publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities.

Title: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0318.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0050.

ICR status: The current ICR (EPA ICR No. 0318.10) is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. The effective date of this ICR renewal (EPA ICR No. 0318.11) is January 22, 2008—at which point EPA ICR No. 0318.10 will be superseded by EPA ICR No. 0318.11. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) is required by Sections 205(a) and 516(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act ( http://www.epa.gov/cwns ). It is a periodic inventory of existing and proposed publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs) and other water pollution control facilities in the United States, as well as an estimate of how many POTWs need to be built. The CWNS is a voluntary, joint effort of EPA and the States. The Survey records cost and technical data associated with POTWs and other water pollution control facilities, existing and proposed, in the United States. The State respondents who provide this information to EPA are State agencies responsible for environmental pollution control. No confidential information is used, nor is sensitive information protected from release under the Public Information Act. EPA achieves national consistency in the final results through the application of uniform guidelines and validation techniques.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.46 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR will provide a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 56 State (States, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories) respondents, approximately 5,400 water pollution control facilities.

Frequency of response: Every 4 Years.

Estimated total average number of responses for each State respondent: 322, of which approximately 100 are estimated to involve State interaction with water pollution control facilities.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 8,807.

Estimated total annual costs: $296,000. This includes an estimated burden cost of $296,000 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is an overall increase of 1,136 annual hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR approved by OMB for the 2004 Survey under EPA ICR No. 0318.09 (the currently active EPA ICR No. 0318.10 only covers infrequent updates, made by States solely for their own State's benefit, in the period between the 2004 and 2008 Surveys).

Feedback received from States following the 2004 survey indicated that the total burden to the 56 respondents was approximately 893 annual hours greater than the 7,672 annual hours estimated in EPA ICR No. 0318.09. Additionally, State feedback indicated approximately 1,713 annual burden hours for POTWs to interact with States on State's responses to the 2004 Survey. Taken together, the 893 additional annual state hours and the 1,713 POTW hours add to 2,605 annual hours expended in 2004 beyond what was estimated in EPA ICR No. 0318.09.

EPA, in partnership with States, is in the process of completing several activities that will decrease the total annual burden hours. The development of a new web-based data entry system, in conjunction with reduced data element requirements and several streamlined methods for assuring data quality, are estimated to reduce reporting burden by 2,536 annual hours.

The projected increase in the number of facilities for which States submit needs (due to greater availability of substantiating documentation and needs estimation techniques) correlates with an increase of approximately 1,066 annual hours.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Background: The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC Panel consists of the seven CASAC members supplemented by subject-matter-experts. The CASAC Panel provides advice and recommendations to EPA concerning the Agency's proposed rule for LRRP activities. The Panel complies with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

On July 9-10, 2007, at the request of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), within the Agency's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), the CASAC Panel met in a public meeting in Durham, NC to conduct a peer review of the Agency's Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology and the OPPT Dust Study. The purpose of this public teleconference meeting is to hold follow-on discussions to inform the CASAC's forthcoming letter to the Administrator resulting from its July 9-10 meeting.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Materials for this CASAC Panel teleconference will be posted on the SAB Web Site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casac_adv_tech_assessment_lrrp.htm prior to the meeting. In addition, the Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology is posted on EPA's “Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program” Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/casac.htm ; and the OPPT Dust Study is posted on the Agency's “Lead Safe Work Requirements to Protect Children During Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities” Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#info.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the CASAC Panel to consider during the advisory process.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Mr. Butterfield, CASAC DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), by July 31, 2007, at the contact information noted above, to be placed on the list of public speakers for this meeting. Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by August 3, 2007, so that the information may be made available to the CASAC Panel for their consideration prior to this teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature (optional), and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Butterfield at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Background: The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC Lead Review Panel consists of the seven CASAC members supplemented by subject-matter-experts. The CASAC Lead Review Panel provides advice and recommendations to EPA concerning lead in ambient air. The Panel complies with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including Lead. In December 2006, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), within the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), released the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper and the Draft Lead Exposure and Risk Assessments technical support document as part of its review of the Lead NAAQS. The purpose of the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper was to evaluate the policy implications of the key scientific and technical information contained in the Agency's Final AQCD for Lead and to identify critical elements that EPA staff believes should be considered in its review of the Lead NAAQS. The Draft Lead Exposure and Risk Assessments technical support document described the methodology and presents the results of the pilot phase human exposure and health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments for a number of case studies. In February 2007, the CASAC Panel held a public advisory meeting to review the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper and the Draft Lead Exposure and Risk Assessments technical support document. The CASAC's letter/report to the Administrator concerning this review (EPA-CASAC-07-003, dated March 27, 2007) is posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-07-003.pdf.

Technical Contacts: Any questions concerning the Agency's 2nd Draft Lead Exposure and Risk Assessments document can be directed to Dr. Zachary Pekar, OAQPS, at phone: 919-541-3704, or e-mail: pekar.zachary@epa.gov.

Availability of Meeting Materials: On or about July 31, 2007, the 2nd Draft Lead Exposure and Risk Assessments document will be posted on the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at URL http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html , in the “Documents from Current Review” section under “Technical Documents.” A copy of the draft agenda and other materials for these CASAC meetings will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casacorpanel.html prior to the meetings.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the CASAC Lead Review Panel to consider during the advisory process. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Mr. Butterfield, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), by August 21, 2007, at the contact information noted above, to be placed on the list of public speakers for these meetings. Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by Friday, August 24, 2007, so that the information may be made available to the CASAC Panel for their consideration prior to these meetings. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature (optional), and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Butterfield at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the first meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

During the meeting, the Subcommittee may also hear progress reports from some of its workgroups as well as updates and announcements on activities of general interest to attendees.

Juliana Cyril, PhD, Scientific Program Administrator, Office of Extramural Research, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone 404.639.4639.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The draft guidance document, when finalized, will provide information concerning cooperative manufacturing arrangements applicable to biological products subject to licensure under section 351 of the U.S. Public Health Service Act. The draft guidance addresses several types of manufacturing arrangements (i.e., short supply arrangements, divided manufacturing arrangements, shared manufacturing arrangements, and contract manufacturing arrangements) and describes certain reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities, associated with these arrangements, for the licensed manufacturer(s), contract manufacturer(s), and final product manufacturer(s) including the following: (1) Notification of any proposed change in the product, production process, quality controls or facilities; (2) notification of results of tests and investigations related to or impacting the product; (3) notification of products manufactured in a contract facility; and (4) standard operating procedures.

Each licensed manufacturer in a divided manufacturing arrangement or shared manufacturing arrangement must notify the appropriate FDA Center regarding proposed changes in the manufacture, testing, or specifications of its product, in accordance with § 601.12 (21 CFR 601.12). In the draft guidance, we recommend that each licensed manufacturer that proposes such a change should inform other participating licensed manufacturer(s) of the proposed change.

For contract manufacturing arrangements, we recommend that the contract manufacturer should share with the license manufacturer all important proposed changes to production and facilities (including introduction of new products or at inspection). The license holder is responsible for reporting these changes to FDA (§ 601.12).

In the draft guidance, we recommend the following for contract manufacturing arrangements:

• The contract manufacturer should fully inform the license manufacturer of the results of all tests and investigations regarding or possibly having an impact on the product; and

• The license manufacturer should obtain assurance from the contractor that any FDA list of inspectional observations will be shared with the license manufacturer to allow evaluation of its impact on the purity, potency, and safety of the license manufacturer's product.

In the draft guidance, we recommend for contract manufacturing arrangements that a license manufacturer cross reference a contract manufacturing facility's Master Files only in circumstances involving certain proprietary information of the contract manufacturer such as a list of all products manufactured in a contract facility. In this situation the license manufacturer should be kept informed of the types or categories of all products manufactured in the contract facility.

In the draft guidance, we remind the license manufacture that the license manufacturer assumes responsibility for compliance with the applicable product and establishment standards (§ 600.3(t)) (21 CFR 600.3(t)). Therefore, if the license manufacturer enters into an agreement with a contract manufacturing facility, the license manufacturer must ensure that the facility complies with the applicable standards. An agreement between a license manufacturer and a contract manufacturing facility normally includes procedures to regularly assess the contract manufacturing facility's compliance. These procedures may include, but are not limited to, review of records and manufacturing deviations and defects, and periodic audits.

For shared manufacturing arrangements, each manufacturer must submit a separate biologics license application describing the manufacturing facilities and operations applicable to the preparation of that manufacturer's biological substance or product (§ 601.2(a)) (21 CFR 601.2(a)). In this draft guidance, we expect the manufacturer that prepares (or is responsible for the preparation of) the product in final form for commercial distribution to assume primary responsibility for providing data demonstrating the safety, purity, and potency of the final product. We also expect the licensed finished product manufacturer to be primarily responsible for any postapproval obligations, such as postmarketing clinical trials, additional product stability studies, complaint handling, recalls, postmarket reporting of the dissemination of advertising and promotional labeling materials as required under § 601.12(f)(4) and adverse experience reporting. We recommend that the final product manufacturer establish a procedure with the other participating manufacturer(s) to obtain information in these areas.

Description of Respondents : The recordkeeping and reporting recommendations described in this document affect the participating licensed manufacturer(s), final product manufacturer(s), and contract manufacturer(s) associated with cooperative manufacturing arrangements.

Burden Estimate : We believe that the information collection provisions in the draft guidance do not create a new burden for respondents. We believe the reporting and recordkeeping provisions are part of usual and customary business practice. Licensed manufacturers would have contractual agreements with participating licensed manufacturers, final product manufacturers, and contract manufacturers, as applicable for the type of cooperative manufacturing arrangement, to address all these information collection provisions.

This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations at parts 201, 207, 211, 600, 601, 606, 607, 610, 660, 803, and 807 (21 CFR parts 201, 207, 211, 600, 601, 606, 607, 610, 660, 803, and 807). The collections of information in §§ 606.121, 606.122, and 610.40 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0116; § 610.2 has been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0206; §§ 600.12(e) and 600.80 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0308; §§ 601.2(a), 601.12, 610.60, 610.61, 610.62, 610.67, 660.2(c), 660.28(a) and (b), 660.35(a), (c) through (g), and (i) through (m), 660.45, and 660.55(a) and (b) have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0338; §§ 803.20, 803.50, and 803.53 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0437; and §§ 600.14 and 606.171 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0458. The current good manufacturing practice regulations for finished pharmaceuticals (part 211) have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0139; the establishment registration regulations (parts 207, 607, and 807) have been approved under OMB Control Nos. 0910-0045, 0910-0052, and 0910-0387; and the labeling regulations (part 201) have been approved under OMB Control Nos. 0910-0340 and 0910-0370.

Agency: National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Grants and Training, Assistance to the Firefighters Program Office, Department of Homeland Security.

Title: Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grants program.

Title: Assistance in Firefighters Grants (AFG).

OMB Number: 1660-0054.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Fire departments; not-for-profit institutions; local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 25,000 applicants; 7,000 awardees.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 12 hours for application; 4 hours for administration.

FF20-10: Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certifications—1 hour.

FF20-16: Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certifications—1.7 hours.

FF16A: Assurances—Construction Program—1.7 hours.

FF16B: Financial Status Report—1.7 hours.

FF16C: Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibilities—1.7 hours.

FF20-20: Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs—9.7 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 28,000 hours for grantee administration.

Description: Information sought under this submission will comprise the grant application for Assistance to Firefighters Grants. This submission is necessary in order for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to effectively implement a competitive grant program. One of the twelve eligible activities is fire prevention and safety (FP&S). Fire departments and National, State, regional and local organizations are eligible to apply for assistance under FP&S. Because of the complexities of eligibility and the various projects that are eligible under this activity, DHS has elected to have an application period for FP&S that is separate from the FIRE Grants application period. This collection is for both applications. The information collected will be used to objectively evaluate each of the 20,000 to 25,000 anticipated applicants to determine which of the applicants' proposals in each of the activities are the closest to the established program priorities. The information is necessary in order for DHS to assess the financial needs of the applicants as well as the projected benefits to be obtained from the use of the grant funds. DHS will also use the information to determine eligibility and whether the proposed use of funds meets the requirements and intent of the legislation.

For the FY 2007 program year, there will be two functional areas under FIRE Grants that the applicants can spend the grant funds: (1) Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety (which includes emergency medical activities, training, wellness and fitness programs, firefighting equipment, and personal protection equipment), and (2) Acquisition of Response Vehicles.

Agency: National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Grants and Training, Assistance to the Firefighters Program Office, Department of Homeland Security.

Title: Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grants program (SAFER).

OMB No.: 1670-NEW.

Frequency: Annual.

Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,500-5,000 respondents.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 hour per response.

Total Burden Hours: 70,000.

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost: (operating/maintaining): None.

Description: Information sought under this submission will comprise the grant application for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program. This submission is necessary in order for DHS to effectively implement a competitive grant program. The SAFER program provides for $110,000,000 in grant funding to be distributed directly to individual fire departments on a competitive basis. The law allows DHS to provide funds to pay the salaries and benefits of newly hired firefighters with decreasing Federal contributions over the span of five years. The law also allows DHS to provide funding to volunteer and combination fire departments to create or expand a recruitment and retention program for volunteer firefighters. The funding is available for up to four years depending on the original proposal submitted by the grantee. The information collected through the program's application is the minimum necessary to evaluate grant applications authorized under the SAFER grant program or is necessary for DHS to comply with mandates delineated in the law. The Assistance to Firefighters Program Office has created an online tutorial and drafted program guidance which will be available prior to the application period at www.firegrantsupport.com.

Direct all written comments to the Department of Homeland Security at the above address. A copy of this Information Collection Request, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the contact listed above. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Agency: National Protection and Programs Directorate, National Communications System.

Title: Shared Resources High Frequency Radio Program (SHARES) Station Data Form.

OMB No.: 1670—New.

Frequency: 1,430 times per year.

Affected Public: Private Citizens.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,430 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 15 minutes per response.

Total Burden Hours: 2,860 hours.

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost: (operating/maintaining): None.

Description: The purpose of the SHARES program is to provide a single, interagency emergency message handling system by bringing together existing High Frequency (HF) radio resources of Federal, state and private organizations when normal communications are destroyed or unavailable for the transmission of national security and emergency preparedness information. SHARES is available on a 24-hour basis to provide an emergency communications link to support intra- or interagency mission requirements. Potential HR radio resources exist in every state and overseas. Radio Operators or other radio operating entities may request to be a part of the SHARES program by submitting appropriate information to DHS on a SHARES Station Data Form. The form will also be used when a station requests to be removed from the program and when providing updated station information. The form will contain information such as station address, station telephone numbers, call signs, address codes, frequencies, technical station capabilities, hours of operation, and point of contact information. SHARES implements Executive Order No. 12472, “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions,” dated April 3, 1984 (amended by Executive Order 13286, dated February 28, 2003).

Proposed Action

To continue to meet America's 21st century maritime threats and challenges, the USCG initiated the Integrated Deepwater System Program, the largest and most innovative acquisition in the Coast Guard's history. The IDS will contribute to the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness, as well as the improved ability to intercept, engage, and deter those activities that pose a direct challenge/threat to U.S. sovereignty and security. The IDS will provide the means to extend our layered maritime defenses from our ports and coastal areas to hundreds of miles out to sea.

As part of the IDS program, the USCG proposes a NSC home-porting plan that entails home porting four NSCs, some pier improvements, and a new administrative building at CGI in Alameda, California. The four NSCs would replace, on a one-for-one basis, the four aging 378-foot WHECs currently stationed in Alameda.

To accommodate the vessels and crew, in addition to the proposed home porting, improvements to the existing waterfront pier and construction of a new administration building would be required at the existing base to provide adequate shore-side support.

We prepared an Environmental Assessment to identify and examine the reasonable alternatives and assess their potential environmental impact. The EA evaluated the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the NSC homeporting plan on natural, cultural and human resources. The EA tiers from the USCG's Final PEIS for the IDS Program (see notice of availability, 67 FR 15275, Mar. 29, 2002).

Our preferred alternative is to commission and home port the four NSCs into an area where the necessary shore-side infrastructure and port environment already exists to support this class and number of vessels. The existing base on CGI provides the shore support necessary to meet the logistical requirements of the four NSCs. This existing support includes secure facilities, easy access for Coast Guard personnel, administrative and support buildings and services, and required shore ties to service in-port cutters.

Based on a review of the Final EA, which was determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed action and provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required, a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued for the preferred alternative of the proposed action.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information 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 through 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: Financial Standards for Housing Agency-Owned Insurance Entities.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0186.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) can purchase insurance coverage from a nonprofit insurance entity owned and controlled by PHAs which are approved by HUD. PHA-owned insurance entities must submit certain documentation to HUD and also submit audit and actuarial reviews to HUD.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 190.

Status: Extension of a current collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information 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 through 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: Grant Drawdown Payment Request/LOCCS/VRS voice activated.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0166.

Form Numbers: 50080-CFP; 50080-OFND; 50080-IHBG; 50080-HOMI; 50080-TIHD; 50080-AP,C,CB-CR,CBG,HSS,NN,RMBD,RSDE,RSDF,RSDM,SC; 50080-PHTA; 50080-PDEV; 50080-PSPG; 50080-URP; 50080-SNGP; 50080-SCPH; 50080-YAP; 50080-UYC; 50080-YSP; 50080-MTW; 50080-FSS; 50080-HEI; 50080-HOP1-a; 50080-HOP1b; 50080-HOZ; 50080-ITG; 50080-LBP; 50080-MTO; 50080-OTA;

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Public and Indian Housing Grant recipients use the payment vouchers to request funds from HUD through the LOCCS/VRS voice activated system. The information collected on the form serves also as an internal control measure to ensure the lawful and appropriate disbursement of Federal funds.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.