The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Kalven L. Trice, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.

The project will rehabilitate Floodwater Retarding Structure (FWRS) No. 7 to maintain the present level of flood control and comply with the current dam safety and performance standards. Local Sponsoring Organizations for the rehabilitation of FWRS No. 7 are the Point Remove Watershed Improvement District and the Conway County Conservation District.

Rehabilitation of FWRS No. 7 will require the dam to be modified to meet current performance and safety standards for a high hazard dam. The modification will consist of

• Lengthening the principal spillway conduit by 42 feet to accommodate the new top of dam elevation. The existing principal spillway inlet and conduit size are adequate.

• Maintaining the principal spillway crest at Elevation 539.4, the current permanent pool elevation.

• Modifying the existing 200-foot auxiliary spillway to meet integrity requirements by increasing the length of the level crest section from 50 feet to 150 feet.

• Increase the size of the principal spillway low stage port opening to meet 100-year, 10 day PSH drawdown criteria.

• Raising the top of dam from Elevation 566.0 feet to Elevation 570.9 feet to safely pass the 6-hour to 72-hour duration PMP storms.

All disturbed areas will be planted to plants that have wildlife values. The proposed work will not affect any prime farmland, endangered or threatened species, or cultural resources. Adverse impacts to wetlands will be temporary and minor.

Federal assistance will be provided under authority of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (Section 313, Pub. L. 106-472). Total project cost is estimated to be $871,800, of which $624,300 will be paid from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation funds and $247,500 from local funds.

The notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Kalven L. Trice, State Conservationist.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

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

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

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

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

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

The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On May 11, June 8 and June 15, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 26779; 31805; 33200) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This action does not affect curren t contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

On May 10, 2006 the President established the Identity Theft Task Force by Executive Order 13402 to strengthen Federal efforts to protect against identity theft. This notice establishes a routine use for all Department of Commerce systems of records to permit disclosure to appropriate persons or entities for purposes of response and remedial efforts in the event of a suspected or confirmed breach of the data contained in the systems. This routine use will facilitate an effective response to such breach by allowing for disclosure to those individuals affected by the breach, as well as to others who are in a position to assist the Department's response efforts, either by assisting in notification to affected individuals or otherwise assisting in preventing, minimizing, or remedying harms from any breach. A description of the amendment to the Department's systems of records is provided below.

The Department of Commerce notices as published in the Privacy Act Issuances 2005 Compilation:

Records in the above listed systems of records may be disclosed as follows:

To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

In response to a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), Command, Control and Interoperability Division (C2I), Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), the NIST Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) is developing protocol implementation profiles for VoIP communications between public safety personnel.

The request from OIC germinated from practitioner-raised issues related to VoIP-enabled solutions being marketed to the public safety community as an “interoperability solution,” yet these solutions will not interoperate with VoIP-enabled solutions from other manufacturers making the same claim. The proper way to address this situation is to develop a protocol implementation profile (or set of profiles) that contains the minimum standards, parameters and values necessary to ensure that solutions developed by independent organizations will interoperate with each other. This roundtable discussion is intended to lead to the development of a protocol implementation profile for VoIP-enabled radio system bridging solutions.

Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by close of business September 4, 2007, in order to attend. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Ms. Kathy Mayeda and she will provide you with logistics information for the meeting. Ms. Mayeda's e-mail address is kmayeda@its.bldrdoc.gov and her phone number is (303) 497-5890.

All attendees are required to submit their name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Ms. Mayeda. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor and address.

Donald Williams filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H. Mr. Williams appeals an objection, filed by the State of New York, to a consistency determination prepared by Mr. Williams related to his proposed erosion project (stone rip-rap) along the shoreline of Lake Ontario, in Niagara County, New York.

In the federal consistency appeal process, the Secretary may override the State's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with objective or purposes” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the state's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121 (2005), as amended , 71 FR 787, 831 (Jan. 5, 2006). To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired were the project not allowed to go forward. 15 CFR 930.121.

Written comments are invited on any of the issues the Secretary must consider in deciding this appeal. Comments must be received within 30 days of the publication of this notice, and may be submitted to Suzanne Bass, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments will be made available to the Appellant and the State.

NOAA intends to provide the public with access to all materials and related documents comprising the appeal record during business hours, at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services.

For additional information about this appeal contact Suzanne Bass, 301-713-7387.

The HIHWNMS Advisory Council was established in March 1996 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. Since its establishment, the Council has played a vital role in the decisions affecting the Sanctuary surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands.

The Council's twenty-four voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus ten local, state and federal governmental jurisdictions.

Council is supported by three committees: a Research Committee chaired by the Research Representative, an Education Committee chaired by the Education Representative, and a Conservation Committee chaired by the Conservation Representative, each respectively dealing with matters concerning research, education and resource protection.

The Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the state and federal management agencies, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts and attention on the humpback whale and its habitat around the main Hawaiian Islands.

The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager and is instrumental in helping to develop policies and program goals, and to identify education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection and revenue enhancement priorities. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manager in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program within the context of Hawai‘i’s marine programs and policies.

On March 7, 2007, notice was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10169) that an amendment to Permit No. 782-1719, issued June 30, 2004 (69 FR 44514), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 782-1719-05 authorizes NMML to take species of cetaceans under NMFS jurisdiction during stock assessment activities throughout U.S. territorial waters and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, and Arctic Ocean. The permit authorizes Level B harassment during close approach for aerial surveys, vessel-based surveys, observations, and photo-identification and Level A harassment during biopsy sampling and attachment of scientific instruments. This amendment increases the authorized number of takes for biopsy sampling and tagging of gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ) and non-ESA-listed killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) as well as the takes during close approach for aerial and vessel surveys, photo-identification, tagging, and biopsy sampling of non-endangered dwarf sperm whales ( Kogia breviceps ), pantropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuata ), pygmy sperm whales ( Kogia simus ), rough-toothed dolphins ( Steno bredanensis ), Hawaii spinner dolphins ( Stenella longirostris ), striped dolphins ( Stenella coeruleoalba ), and melon-headed whales ( Peponocephala electra ) in the North Pacific Ocean. The amended permit is valid until the permit expires on June 30, 2009.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:

Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521;

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426;

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249;

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and

Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941.

On February 28, 2007, notice was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 8972) that a request for a scientific research permit to take humpback whales had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 1120-1898, issued to the Eye of the Whale Research, allows for the take of humpback whales in Prince William Sound and adjacent waters of Alaska to determine the population size, distribution, recurrence of individuals, feeding habits, vital rates, associations between animals, and sex of individuals. Researchers may closely approach up to 1,350 whales annually during vessel surveys for photo-identification and behavioral observation.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of section 104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Section 104(c)(6) provides for photography for educational or commercial purposes involving non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals in the wild. NMFS is currently working on proposed regulations to implement this provision. However, in the meantime, NMFS has received and is processing this request as a “pilot” application for Level B Harassment of non-listed and non-depleted marine mammals for photographic purposes.

Harbor and gray seals would be filmed on land, from vessel, and underwater within the Isles of Shoals and Casco Bay, Maine. The images collected would be used in a segment for the New Hampshire Public Television educational series “Windows to the Wild.” Up to 300 harbor and 50 gray seals may be harassed during filming. Harassment would not exceed Level B and filming would occur on no more than two occasions.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On March 30, 2007, NMFS issued an IHA to UOCC under the authority of Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, to take by harassment small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ), Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ), Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ), harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), and killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in northwestern Cook Inlet, Alaska, between May 1 and June 15, 2007 (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007). However, as a result of ice conditions in the Cook Inlet during spring 2007, UOCC was unable to begin seismic operations planned for May. As a result, on May 17, 2007, UOCC requested that NMFS change the effective date of its IHA to the time period September 4 through November 15, 2007.

On May 15, 2007. MMFS received an application from MOC requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of the Cook Inlet beluga whale, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in portions of Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Both proposed operations use an ocean-bottom cable (OBC) system to conduct seismic surveys. OBC seismic surveys are used in waters that are too shallow for the data to be acquired using a marine-streamer vessel and/or too deep to have static ice in the winter. This type of seismic survey requires the use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, shooting, and possibly one or two vessels smaller than those used in streamer operations. The utility boats can be very small, in the range of 10 - 15 m (33 --49 ft). A detailed description of the open water seismic surveys using OBC system was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536), and is not repeated here.

The proposed operations would be active 24 hours per day, but the airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 daily slack tide periods. The source for the proposed OBC seismic surveys would be a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array situated on the source vessel, the Peregrine Falcon . The array would be made up of 2 sub-arrays, each with 2, 3-airgun clusters separated by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) off the stern of the vessel. One cluster will consist of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and the second cluster will have 3, 75-in 3 airguns. During seismic operations, the sub-arrays will fire at a rate of every 10 - 25 seconds and focus energy in the downward direction as the vessel travels at 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). Source level of the airgun array is 249 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m (0 - peak), and the dominant frequency range is 8 - 40 Hz.

The geographic region for the seismic operation proposed by UOCC remains the same as published in the previous Federal Register notice (72 FR 536), which is in the northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the shoreline offshore of Granite Point, and extending from shore into the inlet to an average of about 1.6 km (1 mi).

The geographic region for the activity proposed by MOC encompasses a 68.51 km 2 (26.45 square miles) area in lower Cook Inlet on the eastern shore, paralleling the shoreline for about 15.2 km (9.5 mi) and extending from shore into the inlet an average of about 6.1 km (3.8 mi). The approximate boundaries of the region of the proposed project area are 61°09'N, 151°30'W; 61°12'N, 151°34'W; 61°17'N, 151°25'W; and 60°16'N, 151°21'W. There are no major rivers flowing into the open water seismic project area. Water depths range from 0 to 15 m (48 ft), with most of the area less than 7.3 m (24 ft) deep. The proposed seismic operations would begin as early as October 1 and by November 30, 2007.

Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed action area include Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. Among these species, only the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the ESA, and it is also designated as depleted under the MMPA. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is designated as depleted under the MMPA. General information for these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2006), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2006.pdf . A more detailed description of these species and stocks within Cook Inlet is provided in the January 5, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 536). Therefore, it is not repeated here.

Seismic surveys using acoustic energy may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon et al. , 2004). The sound source levels (zero to peak) associated with the OBC seismic survey can be as high as 233 - 240 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. However, most energy is in the low-frequency spectra below 250 Hz and is directed downward (Richardson et al. , 1995), and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy. Received levels within several kilometers typically exceed 160 dB re 1 microPa (Richardson et al. , 1995), depending on water depth, bottom type, ice cover, etc. Although relatively high levels of airgun pulses and frequencies above 500 Hz were detected at certain depth of water column much further away during Sperm Whale Seismic Study's controlled exposure experiments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (DeRuiter et al. , 2006; Madsen et al. , 2006), this was probably due to the existence of convergence zones where long-range refraction occurred in a much deep ocean with a critical depth and sufficient depth excess (Urick, 1983; Etter, 2003). Within the proposed project area in Cook Inlet, where average water depth is less than 15 m (50 ft), no convergence zone can exist.

Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys have been known to cause behavioral alteration such as reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme et al. , 1986, 1988; Richardson et al. , 1995; Harris et al. , 2001), and changes in blow rates (Richardson et al. , 1995) in several marine mammal species.

The proposed surveys would use a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array consisting of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and 3, 75-in 3 airguns. Acoustic measurements of the airgun array were obtained using calibrated, high-resolution Ocean Bottom Hydrophone recorders in April 2007 in Cook Inlet by JASCO Research Ltd (JASCO). The results show that the nominal ranges to the decibel thresholds 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms, computed using the 90 percent fit equation, are 140, 454, and 3,027 m (or 459, 1,490, and 9,931 ft), respectively (Collins et al. , 2007).

The seismic surveys would only introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. The survey vessels would travel at a speed of 4 5 knots and the two projects would be conducted in a small area of Cook Inlet for a short period.

There is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential impacts of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval, juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close range (within meters) to seismic energy source. Considering typical source levels associated with seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Where eggs and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley et al. , 2003; Smith et al. , 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range (McCauley et al. , 2000a; 2000b; Dalen et al. , 1996), other studies have demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen et al. , 1992; Wardle et al. , 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing the approaching seismic impulses (Engas et al. , 1996). Based on the foregoing, NMFS finds preliminarily that the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed project area.

NMFS estimates that approximately 37 Cook Inlet beluga whales out of a population of 302 whales could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007. This represents 12.1 percent of Cook Inlet beluga whales that could be taken by Level B harassment if no mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented. This number is based on the animal density, length of track planned, and the assumption that all animals will be harassed at distances where noise at received level is at and above 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. Beluga whale density (0.03 whale/km2) was calculated by dividing the population (302) by 50 percent of the surface area of Cook Inlet (19,863 km 2 , or 7,672 mi 2 ), assuming their distribution is only limited to the upper portion of the Inlet (Hobbs et al. , 2005). The number of beluga whales that could be taken by both proposed seismic projects is calculated by multiplying the whale density by the total length of the track lines (57 km or 35.4 mi for UOCC and 146 km or 90.7 mi for MOC) and by twice of the 160 dB isopleths range (3.0 km). This estimate is conservative as it assumes that all animals exposed to seismic impulses over 160 dB re 1 microPa would be harassed and disturbed. As the majority of acoustic energy of low frequency airgun impulses falls outside the beluga whale's most sensitive hearing range (Richardson et al. , 1995), it is most likely that only a portion of whales within the 160 dB re 1 microPa isopleth would be disturbed. In addition, it is also possible that many of the animals would be habituated to this level of acoustic disturbances. Furthermore, mitigation measures, including the ramp-up requirement during the initiation of the seismic operations (see below) could eliminate most, if not all, startling behavior from animals near the proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS believes that the actual number of Level B harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whale would be much lower than the estimated 37 whales.

There are no similar population surveys for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales conducted within the proposed project area. However, based on an abundance survey of harbor porpoises within the entire Cook Inlet (Dahlheim et al. , 2000), it is estimated that the population density of harbor porpoise in the entire Inlet is 0.0072 animal per km 2 . Based on this density data, NMFS estimates that about 9 harbor porpoises out of a population of 30,506 porpoises could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007. This number of take represents less than 0.03 percent of harbor porpoises that could be taken by Level B harassment.

Average counts were used to estimate take instead of density for harbor seals, since count data were available (Boveng et al. , 2005a; 2005b) but not density data. Although no seals were counted in the vicinity of the proposed project areas, it is likely a small number of seals transit through the project areas in the fall. In order to account for seal occurrence in the proposed project areas, the count (1 - 10) at the location (Anchor Point) nearest to the MOC project area was used as the basis for calculating take. This count was quadrupled to account for seals in the water for both proposed project areas, since the conservative estimate of take, which is more likely high than low. Therefore, the estimated take of the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals is 40 seals, which represent approximately 0.14 percent of the total population (29,175, Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

There are no density estimates available for Steller sea lions and killer whales with in Cook Inlet. However, their appearance in Upper Cook Inlet is rare and none of these species were sighted in the upper Inlet during the 2004 survey (Rugh et al. , 2005). Therefore, NMFS concludes that the harassment, if at all, of these species is reasonably believed to be much lower than those of beluga whales and harbor seals.

Tyonek, which is predominately a Dena'ina Athabaskan community, is approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) east of the eastern boundary of the proposed UOCC project area, and is about 100 km (62 mi) north of the proposed MOC project area. While it is the only village that hunts beluga whales, Alaska natives unaffiliated with a Cook Inlet community who have moved to the region and visited the region also have historically harvested beluga whales in the Inlet (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). The role of marine mammals in the subsistence economy of Tyonek and other Alaska natives has been diminished by the almost complete elimination of the harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales because of their greatly reduced stock size. In recent years, Tyonek natives harvested one beluga whale per year and occasionally harbor seals (Huntington, 2000), but their primary source of red meat is moose (Foster, 1982). Salmon and other fish also contribute substantially to their subsistence diet (Foster, 1982). The Tyonek village recently announced (April 16, 2007) that they would not harvest any belugas in 2007 due to the status of the population.

In addition, these areas are not important subsistence areas for subsistence species of marine mammals (harbor seals). Tyonek native subsistence activities have become focused closer to the village as more non-natives utilize and occupied traditional subsistence areas combined with harvest regulation restrictions, changes in the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources, and other factors.

The following mitigation measures are proposed under the proposed IHAs that would be issued to UOCC and MOC for conducting seismic operations in Cook Inlet. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures would: (1) result in the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; and (2) ensure that no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of marine mammals species or stocks for subsistence harvest would result.

Seismic operations would be limited from early September to late November in small portions of Cook Inlet. During the seismic operations, airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 slack tide periods, with the vessel moving at a speed of 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph).

The applicants would establish a 454-m (1,490-ft) radius safety zone for cetaceans and a 140-m (459-ft) radius safety zone for pinnipeds for the seismic operations. These safety zone radii are based on empirical measurements conducted by JASCO on the same airgun array operated in Cook Inlet, where the received sound pressure levels (SPL) attenuated to 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively.

Safety zones would be surveyed and monitored prior to, during, and after the airgun seismic operations. A detailed description of marine mammal monitoring is described in the Monitoring and Reporting section below.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and based on its position and the relative course of travel is likely to enter the safety zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practicable and safe, be changed to avoid the impacts to the animal. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic and support vessels must be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not (1) approach the safety radius, or (2) enter the safety zone. If either of these scenarios occur, further mitigation measures must be taken (i.e., either further course alterations or power down or shut down of the airgun(s)).

A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use so that the radius of the 180- or 190-dB zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety zone. During a power-down, one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic guns in the area.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety zone but is likely to enter the safety zone, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the safety radius, the airguns must be powered down before the animal is within the safety zone.

A shut-down occurs when all airgun activity is suspended. The operating airgun(s) must be shut down if a marine mammal approaches the applicable safety zone and a power down still would not likely to keep the animal outside the newly adjusted smaller safety zone. The operating airgun(s) must also be shut down completely if a marine mammal is found within the safety zone during the seismic operations. The shut-down procedure should be accomplished within several seconds (of a “one shot” period) of the determination that a marine mammal is within or about to enter the safety zone.

Following a shut-down, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal would be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it is visually observed to have left the safety zone, or if it has not been seen within the safety zone for 30 minutes.

Although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of a safety zone at a SPL levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. In order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, and to further reduce Level B harassment by startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, UOCC and MOC propose to implement “ramp-up” practice when starting up airgun arrays. Ramp-up would begin with the smallest airgun in the array that is being used for all subsets of the 6-gun array. Airguns would be added in a sequence such that the source level in the array would increase at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5 minutes. During the ramp-up, the safety zone for the full 6-airgun system would be maintained.

During night-time operations when the safety zone cannot be visually inspected, a single airgun will operate by firing every one minute whenever regular acquisition airgun operations are not occurring to keep marine mammals at a safe distance. If, during these non-recording times, this airgun is inactive for more than 30 minutes, operations will cease and all airguns will be shut down until the safety zone can be visually inspected and monitored for the absence of marine mammals.

Vessel based monitoring would be conducted by at least two qualified NMFS-approved MMOs. Reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Bushnell or equivalent) and laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser range finder or equivalent) would be standard equipment for the monitors.

Vessel-based MMOs would begin marine mammals monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations and during all periods of airgun operations. MMOs would survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before a seismic survey begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, seismic operations would be suspended until the marine mammal leaves the area. If a marine mammal is seen above the water and then dives below, the operator would wait 30 minutes, and if no marine mammals are seen by the MMOs in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. Observations would also be conducted during all ramp-up procedures to ensure the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure. When feasible, observations would also be made during transits, moving cable, and other operations when airguns are inactive.

Data for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the proposed project area during the period of the seismic operations would be collected. Numbers of marine mammals observed, species identification if possible, frequency of observation, the time corresponding to the daily tidal cycle, and any behavioral changes due to the airgun operations will be recorded and entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The accuracy of the data entry would be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures would allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving.

Results from the vessel-based observations would provide: (1) Basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down); (2) information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS; (3) data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted; (4) information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and (5) data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

In addition to vessel monitoring, seismic surveys that would be conducted off Granite Point between September and November by UOCC would also be required to conduct aerial monitoring, due to the relative more frequent use by beluga whales in the area (Hobbs et al. , 2005). The aerial surveys would: (1) collect and report data on the distribution, numbers, movement and behavior of marine mammals near the seismic operations on the westside of Cook Inlet between Tyonek and Trading Bay, with special emphasis on beluga whales; (2) advise operating vessels as to the presence of marine mammals in the general area of operation; and (3) support regulatory reporting related to the estimation of impacts of seismic operations on marine mammals.

The aerial monitoring area will be centered on the project area plus a buffer for detecting belugas before or after they pass through the project area. The boundary for the aerial survey extends approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) east and west of the project area, between Tyonek and Trading Bay (directly east of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge boundary), and 0.25 mi (0.4 mi) from the water's edge, which will vary depending on tide levels. The size of the survey area provides a design for observing whales before and during exposure to seismic sounds.

Aerial monitoring will be conducted from a single engine helicopter, which will fly a single transect line paralleling the shoreline along the coast in the project area. The aerial survey will begin from the northeast end and finish at the southwest end of the transect. This pattern will be flown unless observation conditions (glare, etc) require flying from southwest to northeast depending on the effect of glare on observations. The helicopter operations will be based out of Beluga or Shirleyville. The helicopter will fly at 1,500 ft (457 m), due to glide path needs, and at a ground speed of 60 knot (111 km/h). This altitude should prevent disturbance of marine mammals and birds by the helicopter noise.

Helicopter monitoring will be conducted at a frequency that reflects the monthly occurrence of belugas in the project area (LGL, 2006). The helicopter will be flown once per week from the time the seismic operations begin until the project is completed. However, if beluga whales are observed by helicopter or boat in or near the project area, survey flights will be conducted daily until whales are not observed for two consecutive days. Once belugas are no longer observed for two consecutive days, surveys will again be flown once per week until the project ends.

Aerial monitoring will fly 1 - 2 times shortly before and one half of the survey transect will be flown once during seismic operations, whenever possible, in a given day. Half transects are limited in duration to prevent noise interference with seismic data acquisition. Half transect flight directions will be determined by the relative position of activities to the helicopter landing location.

To the extent consistent with applicable aviation regulation, aerial surveys will be conducted under the following conditions: (1) when the pilot considers it safe to do so; (2) during daylight hours; (3) during good viewing conditions (ceiling height above 1,500 ft (457 M) and Beaufort Sea States below 4; and (4) during periods allowed by regulatory agencies. Flights will also be oriented to minimize sun glare on the observer.

One NMFS-approved MMO will be on the helicopter observing and recording marine mammals, covering the 180o view in front of the helicopter. Space will be made available on the helicopter for NMFS staff to participate in surveys when possible.

Data from aerial monitoring will be recorded on the species, number, group size, location (latitude/longitude), time, date, direction and angle from helicopter as determined by using a clinometer. Data will also be collected on tide, real time positions (latitude/longitude) of seismic survey vessel, shooting, and vessel activities. Observation conditions will be recorded at the start and finish of each survey or whenever conditions change. Data will be recorded on ceiling height, Beaufort Force, glare, and weather (snow, fog, etc.). All information collected during the marine mammal survey and/or reported to the vessel will be recorded on a field form. The information will be included with real time data on seismic activity (boat location, shooting, activities).

Reports from aerial and land-based monitoring would be faxed or e-mailed to NMFS Anchorage Field Office on a daily basis.

Reports from UOCC and MOC would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the respective projects. The reports would describe the operations that were conducted, the marine mammals that were detected near the operations, and provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The reports would also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.

In March 2007, NMFS prepared a final EA on the issuance of IHAs to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc and UOCC to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. A Finding of No Significant Impact statement was issued on March 30, 2007. The proposed seismic operations in this document are similar to those covered in the March 2007 Final EA, with the only exception of project time frames, location, and the levels of estimated marine mammal takes. Therefore, NMFS has prepared a draft Supplemental EA which incorporates by reference the March 2007 Final EA, providing an analysis of project time frames, location, and potential environmental impacts.

An informal consultation on the ESA was conducted for the proposed issuance of UOCC and MOC's IHAs. As a result of informal consultation, NMFS Anchorage Field Office has determined that the proposed seismic activities are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

NMFS has determined preliminarily that small numbers of beluga whales and harbor porpoises may be taken incidental to seismic surveys, by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking would result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks. In addition, NMFS has determined preliminarily that Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and killer whales, if present within the vicinity of the proposed activities could be taken incidentally, buy by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking would result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks. At this time, NMFS is not able to determine whether any potential take would involve small numbers of Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, or killer whales due to data limitations and our inability to develop density estimates. Regardless, given the infrequent occurrence of these species (or none at all), NMFS believes that any take would be significantly lower than those of beluga whales.

While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the project period may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, NMFS nonetheless finds that this action would result in no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal species and/or stocks. NMFS also finds that the proposed action will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses.

In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document.

NMFS proposes to modify the UOCC IHA to allow its seismic operations in Upper Cook Inlet between September and November, 2007, and to issue an IHA to MOC for the potential harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales incidental to conducting seismic operations in Cook Inlet in Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Review revised alternatives per Salmon Work Group recommendations (June 2007), preliminary work on hard cap estimation and trigger cap numbers by season and annual totals, spatial evaluation of candidate closures I (A and B season), evaluation of closures and salmon hot spots using observed salmon numbers and salmon bycatch rates, evaluation of candidate closures using a proposed optimization technique and Workgroup Discussion and recommendations for Council consideration.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including 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).

This form or its electronic equivalent is used by AmeriCorps members to request a payment from their education award accounts, by schools and lenders to verify eligibility for the payments, and by both parties to verify certain legal requirements.

The Corporation seeks to renew and revise the current form. The revisions include minor format and textual changes to enhance clarity and ease of use. The application will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on October 31, 2007.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Voucher and Payment Request Form.

OMB Number: 3045-0014.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Individuals who have completed a term of national service who wish to access their education award accounts.

Total Respondents: 45,000 responses annually, using the paper form.

Frequency: Some members may not ever use the education award and others use it several times a year. Currently, about half of the education award payments are processed electronically. The Corporation expects the use of paper forms to decrease over the next few years.

Average Time Per Response: Total of 5 minutes (one half minute for the AmeriCorps member's section and 4 1/2 minutes for the school or lender).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,750 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The termination settlement proposal forms (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440) provide a standardized format for listing essential cost and inventory information needed to support the terminated contractor's negotiation position. Submission of the information assures that a contractor will be fairly reimbursed upon settlement of the terminated contract.

Respondents : 872.

Responses Per Respondent : 2.4.

Total Responses : 2,092.

Hours Per Response : 2.4.

Total Burden Hours : 5,023.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0012, Termination Settlement Proposal Forms (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440), in all correspondence.

The Army has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative (with exceptions noted below) identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (June 2007), supporting studies, and comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The Preferred Alternative includes construction, renovation, and operation of proposed facilities to accommodate incoming military missions and activities at Fort Belvoir as mandated by the BRAC Commission's recommendations. The preferred alternative also includes an updated land use plan, a portion of the installation's Real Property Master Plan. To implement the BRAC Commission recommendations, Fort Belvoir will be receiving personnel, equipment, and missions from various closure and realignment actions within the Department of Defense. To implement the BRAC Commission recommendations, the Army will provide the necessary facilities, buildings, and infrastructure to accommodate personnel being realigned from the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS); National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); various Army entities moving from leased space in the National Capital Region (NCR); U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM); Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS); and Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA HQCC). Details of the BRAC Commission's recommendations can be found at http://www.brac.gov. The No Action Alternative would not meet the Army's purpose and need for the Proposed Action as the BRAC realignment is required by Congress and needed for Army transformation to be effective.

Two elements of the EIS's Preferred Alternative were not selected for implementation in the ROD. First, no decision is being made at this time for siting of the WHS group, designated for the Engineer Proving Ground in the EIS. There will be a subsequent decision for this organization, following analysis of different alternatives. The ROD also does not include building of the Family Travel Camp on Fort Belvoir's Main Post.

Special consideration was given to the effect of the Preferred Alternative on natural resources, cultural resources, traffic and transportation, socioeconomic resources, and air quality. Many means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative have been adopted. Other mitigation measures identified in the EIS were not adopted, primarily because of a lack of funding. The Army will minimize effects on all environmental and socioeconomic resources by implementing the best management practices described in the EIS.

As determined in the EIS, implementing the Preferred Alternative will have short- and long-term significant adverse impacts on the transportation network at Fort Belvoir and its surrounding area. The ROD states that implementing the Preferred Alternative reflects a proper balance among initiatives for protection of the environment, appropriate mitigation, and actions to achieve the Army's requirements.

An electronic version of the ROD can be viewed or downloaded from the following Web site: http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/nepa_eis_docs.htm.

The Army has decided to proceed with implementing the Proposed Action described in the Final EIS. The Proposed Action is the Army's preferred alternative to implement three transformation programs at the PCMS. The Army transformation programs include: BRAC 2005; Global Defense Posture Realignment (formerly known as Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy); and the Army Modular Force initiative. These programs are part of the overall Army restructuring and are needed to prepare the Army's combat forces for deployment around the world. The Army's decision considered and is consistent with the analysis presented in the EIS, supporting studies, and comments provided during formal comment and review periods.

To implement the BRAC Commission recommendations, the Proposed Action includes two primary components: (1) More frequent use of the PCMS training areas to provide training for approximately 8,500 realigned Active Component (AC) Soldiers and additional Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers assigned to, or otherwise under the control of, Fort Carson and (2) construction of facilities in the Cantonment and ranges in the training areas.

The Proposed Action will provide for increased frequency of training for existing and new units stations at, or otherwise assigned to, Fort Carson. Training and maneuver activities would be similar to the types of activities that presently occur on the PCMS. The increased training requirements of additional AC and RC units, however, will result in increased frequency of use of the training areas. The Army will continue to implement land and environmental management programs and practices to sustain its training lands for continued use. The No Action Alternative would not meet the Army's purpose and need for the Proposed Action because the BRAC realignment is required by Congress and needed for Army transformation to be effective.

All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts as a result of implementing the selected action have been adopted. The Army will minimize effects on all environmental and cultural resources by implementing the best management practices and mitigation measures described in the ROD to minimize or avoid the adverse effects identified in the Final EIS.

The Army's decision reflects a proper balance among initiatives for protection of the environment, appropriate mitigation, and actions to achieve the Army's requirements.

The decision does not include expansion of the PCMS through land acquisition. Expansion of the PCMS is a separate action that will be evaluated in a public process at a future date.

An electronic version of the ROD can be viewed or downloaded online at http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/nepa_eis_docs.htm.

The Army has decided to proceed with implementing the Proposed Action described in the Final EIS. The Proposed Action is the Army's preferred alternative to implement three transformation programs at Fort Carson. The Army transformation programs include: BRAC 2005; Global Defense Posture Realignment (formerly known as Intergrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy); and the Army Modular Force initiative. These programs are part of the overall Army restructuring and are needed to prepare the Army's combat forces for deployment around the world. The Army's decision considered, and is consistent with, the analysis presented in the EIS, supporting studies, and comments provided during formal comment and review periods.

To implement transformation programs, the Proposed Action includes three primary components: (1) Changes in force structure resulting in a net gain of military units and personnel; (2) facility construction, renovation, and demolition; and (3) increased frequency of live-fire and maneuver training. The only alternative to the Proposed Action that was evaluated in the Final EIS, the No Action alternative, is not feasible because restationing has been directed by BRAC 2005.

All practicable means have been adopted to avoid adverse impacts on environmental and cultural resources identified in the Final EIS as a result of implementing the selected action. To the extent that such impacts cannot be avoided altogether, the Army will minimize them by implementing the best management practices and mitigation measures described in ROD.

The Army's decision reflects a proper balance among initiatives for protection of the environment, appropriate mitigation, and actions to achieve the Army's requirements.

Copies of the ROD can be requested from the NEPA Coordinator or downloaded at http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/nepa_eis_docs.htm.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Acting Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment Document.

Frequency: Reporting, Annually.

Affected Public:

 Not-for-profit institutions (primary).

 Businesses or other for-profit.

 State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 9,332.

  Burden Hours: 6,221.

Abstract: Enrollment in SAIG allows eligible entities to exchange Title IV information electronically with the Department of Education. Users are able to receive, transmit, view and update student financial aid data via SAIG. Eligible respondents include postsecondary schools that participate in Federal student financial aid programs, financial aid servicers, State and guaranty agencies, lenders, and need analysis servicers.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3423. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Western is a power marketing agency of DOE that markets Federal electric power to statutorily defined customers, including project use, municipalities, irrigation districts, and Native American tribes. Western initially determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be prepared for the proposed Granby Pumping Plant-Windy Gap Transmission Line Rebuild Project on February 25, 2005. Western held open-house scoping meetings on July 28, 2005, and November 15, 2006. The public expressed numerous concerns about the impacts of the project. Based on a review of the public's concerns, Western subsequently determined that an EIS would be prepared.

The EIS will address the environmental impacts of the proposal to remove about 12 miles of existing 69-kV transmission line and the construction and operation of about 12 miles of new 138-kV double-circuit transmission line (which would be operated at 69/138-kV), and adding a second power transformer. Alternatives, including the no action alternative, will also be addressed in the EIS. Western's EIS process will comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended), Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Because the proposed project may involve action in floodplains, the EIS will include a floodplain assessment and floodplain statement of findings following DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR part 1022).

Western's Rocky Mountain Region proposes to rebuild and upgrade the Granby Pumping Plant-Windy Gap 69-kV transmission line, between the Windy Gap Substation and the Granby Pumping Plant, a distance of approximately 11.7 miles. The transmission line, which was constructed on wood-pole H-frame structures, is located in Grand County, Colorado, near the towns of Granby and Grand Lake. Other participants in the project include Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Inc. (Tri-State) and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD).

Western's Granby Pumping Plant-Windy Gap 69-kV transmission line has been in operation approximately 65 years. It supplies electrical power to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities and electrical substations operated by Mountain Parks Electric, Inc. (MPEI), a Tri-State member operating company.

The area transmission system has also been served by the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Adams Tunnel 69-kV cable for the past 50 years, and the cable is at the end of its planned service life. The Adams Tunnel 69-kV cable provides Tri-State with a second power source for MPEI loads. In 1992, Western and Reclamation studied costs, engineering requirements and electrical system constraints for replacing the Adams Tunnel cable in anticipation of its eventual failure. In 1994, Western and Reclamation decided not to replace the cable if it fails.

For electrical service reliability, Tri-State must maintain a second source of power for MPEI loads. The result of systems studies by both Western and Tri-State demonstrated electrical system reliability improvements when a new 138-kV transmission line was added between the Windy Gap and Granby substations.

The NCWCD expressed interest in extending the 138-kV transmission line directly to C-BT Project facilities at Granby Pumping Plant to allow better voltage support for motor starting at Granby Pumping Plant.

The proposed project includes the following actions.

• Remove 10.0 miles of 69-kV circuit: Windy Gap Substation-Stillwater Tap.

• Remove 1.7 miles of 69-kV circuit: Stillwater Tap to Granby-Granby Pumping Plant Substation.

• Remove three 69-kV line switches at Granby Tap.

• Construct 10.0 miles of 138-kV double-circuit transmission line with overhead fiber optic ground wire (operated at 69/138-kV): Windy Gap Substation-Stillwater Tap.

• Construct 1.7 miles of 138-kV double-circuit transmission line with overhead fiber optic ground wire (operated at 69/138-kV): Stillwater Tap-Granby Pumping Plant Substation.

• Install 69-kV three-way line switches at new Willow Creek Tap (replaces Granby Tap).

• Install 69-kV three-way line switches at Stillwater Tap.

• Construct a new 138/69-kV Granby Pumping Plant Substation, consisting of two circuit breakers with 138-kV main and transfer busses and a 138/69-kV power transformer.

• Install a new 69-kV circuit breaker at the existing 69/6.9-kV Granby Pumping Plant Substation.

• Install a new 138-kV circuit breaker bay at the Windy Gap Substation.

The right-of-way for the existing transmission line is generally 30-feet wide, which is inadequate for new transmission line construction and maintenance. Some segments of the proposed rebuilt and upgraded transmission line would be constructed on new rights-of-way on alternative alignments. Remaining segments of the transmission line would be constructed on existing rights-of-way that will be widened to accommodate construction, operation, and maintenance.

The proposed substation site for the new 138/69-kV Granby Pumping Plant Substation would be approximately 200 feet by 150 feet in area, and located entirely on Reclamation property.

Under the No Action alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed, and the existing 69-kV transmission line would be left in place. Different transmission projects could be proposed by other entities to strengthen the electrical system in the project area.

Western has determined that an EIS is required under DOE NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR 1021, in light of the public's concerns about potential impacts of the project. Western will be the lead Federal agency for preparing the EIS, as defined in 40 CFR 1501.5. In addition, the USFS has been designated a cooperating agency. Western invites interested agencies, Tribes, organizations, and members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the EIS. Western will invite other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, with respect to environmental issues, to be cooperating agencies on the EIS, as defined in 40 CFR 1501.6. Such agencies also may make a request to Western to be a cooperating agency. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified in 40 CFR 1501.6(b).

The EIS will address impacts from the proposed project and a range of reasonable alternatives that achieve that same purpose and need. This notice is to inform agencies and the public of the proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in preparing the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, this notice contains a list of potential environmental issues Western has tentatively identified for analysis. These issues include:

1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants or their critical habitats;

2. Impacts on other biological resources;

3. Impacts on land use, recreation, and transportation;

4. Impacts on floodplains and wetlands;

5. Impacts on cultural or historic resources and tribal values;

6. Impacts on human health and safety;

7. Impacts on air, soil, and water resources (including air quality, surface water impacts, and groundwater impacts);

8. Visual impacts; and

9. Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. Western invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS.

Opportunities for public participation are planned for the entire EIS process. Western anticipates the EIS process will take about 12 months and will include an open-house public scoping meeting; consultation and involvement with appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies; public review and hearing on the published Draft EIS; a published Final EIS; and publication of a Record of Decision. Western will mail newsletters to the mailing list developed for the proposed project to communicate project status and developments. Anyone may request to be placed on the mailing list.

The scoping period will provide opportunity for interested members of the public, representatives of groups, and Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to give input on the scope of alternatives and issues that will be addressed in the EIS. As part of the scoping period, Western will hold a public open-house scoping meeting near the project area. Interested individuals and groups are invited to attend anytime between 4 and 7 p.m., according to the date and location noted above. The open-house scoping meeting will be informal, with Western representatives available for one-on-one discussions with attendees. Attendees will have the opportunity to view maps of the proposed transmission line route, learn about the NEPA process and the proposed schedule, suggest changes and improvements to the proposed project, and obtain additional information. Written comments regarding environmental issues, alternatives, and other scoping issues may be turned in at the scoping meetings or may be provided to Western by fax, e-mail, U.S. Postal Service, or other carrier. Although comments on the proposed project may be submitted at any time during the EIS process, to be assured consideration in helping define the scope of the EIS, all comments or suggestions regarding the appropriate scope must be received by the end of the scoping period. Comments received by Western at or as a result of the July 28, 2005, and November 15, 2006, open houses will be used to help define the scope of the EIS.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58853, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. 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 Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0775, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket Center is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1071.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0028.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on August 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, and 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 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Stationary Gas Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart GG) were proposed on October 3, 1977, and promulgated on September 10, 1979. Owners and operators of stationary gas turbines must submit a one-time-only notification of construction/reconstruction, modification, and startup date, initial performance test date, physical or operational changes, and demonstration of a continuous monitoring system. They also must provide a report on initial performance test result, monitoring results and any excess emissions. Records must be maintained of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions; periods when the continuous monitoring system is inoperative; sulfur and nitrogen content of the fuel; fuel to water ration; rate of fuel consumption; and ambient conditions. Semiannual reports are also required.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 56 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: Stationary gas turbines.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 535.

Frequency of Response: Initially, semiannually, and occasionally.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 59,519.

Estimated Total Costs: $3,837,190 which includes $0 annualized Capital Startup costs, $0 annualized Operations & Maintenance costs (O&M) and $3,837,190 annualized Labor Costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

I. Information About the Project/Document

Effects of global change drivers differ by place and in scale, necessitating place-specific impacts information to enable stakeholders to respond appropriately. Place and scale also determine appropriate adaptation strategies and expected outcomes. This report is a synthesis of three watershed case-study assessments conducted by Global Change Research Program (GCRP) to advance the capability of managers to consider climate and land use change in watershed management decisions. The goal of this report is three-fold: (1) To understand the potential impacts of global changes and the availability of effective responses at the watershed scale across different geographic regions, (2) to learn how GCRP and other research programs might improve the process of conducting future assessments, and (3) to improve GCRP's and other research programs' understanding about effective ways to inject climate change impacts and adaptation information into decision-making processes. Toward that end, this report compares and contrasts methods and processes employed by the three case study teams to learn effective analytic, project management, and decision support approaches.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2007-0667, by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: 202-566-1753.

• Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0667. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .

Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

This draft report addresses the potential effects of climate change on Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) and consequences for their management, and describes apparent research gaps. The report is intended for managers and scientists working with AIS to provide them with information on the potential effects of climate change on AIS, strategies for adapting their management to accommodate these environmental changes, and highlight further research needs and gaps. The literature review that introduces this report shows that important progress has been made in identifying climate change effects on invasive species, but that our understanding of effects on specific species and interactions of other stressors needs to be improved. Following the literature review is an analysis of existing AIS management plans to assess the capacity of states to modify or adapt their management activities to account for climate change effects. The assessment shows that most states currently do not explicitly consider climate change in their aquatic invasive species management plans, but that many plans can incorporate new information on changing environmental conditions. Finally, this report compares information needs of AIS managers with current research to determine where gaps exist. Overall, more information and research are needed on many aspects of the effects of climate change on AIS.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2007-0666, by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: 202-566-1753.

• Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0666. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

I. Information About the Project/Document

This report describes projected effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems and provides a preliminary analysis of possible effects on river and stream bioassessment programs. The report is intended for managers and scientists working on biological indicators, bioassessment, and biocriteria to provide them with information on the potential effects of climate change on indicator organisms used, initial strategies for adapting their programs to accommodate these environmental changes, and highlight possible next steps. The first step described in the report is an approach for identifying biological indicators sensitive to climate change; a case study next analyzes bioassessment data to detect possible climate change effects; and, finally, another analysis discusses methods for continuing to detect impairment under climate change. The results show that (1) Some biological indicators may be particularly sensitive to climate change; (2) depending on species loss rates, magnitude of temperature changes, and number samples, effects may be detected in 15 to 100 years; and (3) climate change effects may decrease the ability of states to discriminate between reference and impaired sites. The report concludes with recommendations for more in-depth assessments in different U.S. regions and further dissemination and coordination of information across EPA and states.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2007-0665, by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: 202-566-1753.

• Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0665. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

The FCC published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007, a summary of an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing that sets for hearing a proceeding concerning whether Pendleton C. Waugh, Charles M. Austin, Jay R. Bishop, Preferred Communication Systems, Inc., and Preferred Acquisitions, Inc., violated the Commission's rules, whether forfeitures should be issued, and whether certain wireless licenses of Preferred Communication Systems, Inc., and Preferred Acquisitions, Inc., should be revoked. Inadvertently, the document contained an incorrect docket number, EB Docket No. 07-143. This amendment corrects that docket number.

In FR Doc. E7-14876, published on August 1, 2007, (72 FR 42088), on page 42088, make the following correction. On page 42088, in the second line of the header of the notice, change the docket number from EB Docket No. 07-143 to EB Docket No. 07-147.

The ACBSA will discuss ethical considerations and risk benefits for ensuring transfusion and transplantation safety during focal periods of shortages. In addition the Committee will review and discuss the elasticity of the blood supply to support transfusion and transplantation safety as well as strategies and barriers to those strategies.

Public comment will be solicited on both August 22 and 23, 2007. Comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Anyone planning to comment is encouraged to contact the Executive Secretary at his/her earliest convenience. Those who wish to have printed material distributed to Advisory Committee members should submit thirty (30) copies to the Executive Secretary prior to close of business August 17, 2007. Likewise, those who wish to utilize electronic data projection to the Committee must submit their materials to the Executive Secretary prior to close of business August 17, 2007.

In the Federal Register of September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55484), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0322. The approval expires on January 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

In the Federal Register of December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74924), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0530. The approval expires on May 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

This invention provides methods of treating or preventing brain damage in stroke through administration of E-selectin, an inducible adhesion molecule on endothelial cells. The expression of E-selectin is induced on human endothelium in response to activation by cytokines IL-1 and TNF. E-selectin mediates the adhesion of various leukocytes, including neutrophils, monocytes, eosinophils, natural killer cells, and a subset of T cells to activated endothelium. Activation of vascular endothelial cells by proinflammatory cytokines is believed to be involved in conversion of the luminal surface of endothelium from anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory to procoagulant and pro-inflammatory leading to thrombosis. Segmental vascular activation and thrombosis are involved in the development of strokes.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 60 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

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

The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of United States of America v. State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include review of proposed work plan amendments and discussions about outreach and education activities and habitat protection.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. The CCP guides management decisions and identifies refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes. Each refuge in the NWRS has specific purposes for which it was established. Those purposes are used to develop and prioritize management goals and objectives within the NWRS mission and to guide which public uses will occur on a given refuge.

The planning process will consider many elements, including wildlife and habitat management, habitat protection and acquisition, wilderness preservation, public recreational activities, and cultural resource protection. Public input into the planning process is essential. The planning process is a way for the Service and the public to evaluate refuge management goals and objectives for the best possible conservation efforts of this important wildlife habitat. Concurrently, this process is also providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge is located in Liberty County, Texas, and encompasses 22,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest along a portion of the Trinity River in southeastern Texas. The Refuge, which is a remnant of what was once a much larger natural area is a broad, flat floodplain made up of numerous sloughs, oxbows lakes, artesian wells, and tributaries. The CCP will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the Refuge and how the Service will implement management strategies for the conservation and development of these natural resources.

The Service, through this notice of intent, formally begins the comprehensive conservation planning process for Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge. The Service requests input on any and all issues concerning management or public recreation. Comments regarding the protection of threatened and/or endangered species, migratory birds, native species, and their habitats are encouraged.

The Service has provided the above questions for optional use only. Comments received will be used as part of the planning process. Individual comments will not be referenced in our reports or directly responded to. The Service will continue to solicit information from the public and other agencies via open houses, meetings, and written comments. Special mailings, newspaper releases, and announcements will continue to inform people of the time and place of opportunities for further input to the CCP.

Review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) found at http://www.thecrecom/fedlaw/default.htm , other appropriate Federal laws, and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations.

The Service will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with procedures for implementing NEPA found in the Department of the Interior Manual (DM Part 516, Chap 6). The decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement instead of an EA would be contingent upon the complexity of issues following the scoping phase of the CCP process.

We estimate that the draft environmental documents will be available in fall 2009 for public review and comment.

These closures are authorized under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. In accordance with the applicable provisions of 43 U.S.C. 1733 any person failing to comply with the closure orders may be subject to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571, or both.

1. The public closure area is located within the following legally described locations:

1.1. Between August 10, 2007 and September 17, 2007 inclusive:

Public use is prohibited except as provided within the event area as described below.

Public camping is prohibited except as provided within the event area as described below.

Aircraft as defined in Title 18, U.S.C., section 31 (a)(1) and includes lighter-than-air craft, ultra-light craft, and remotely controlled powered craft are prohibited from landing, taking off, or taxiing. The following exceptions apply:

• Aircraft operations conducted through the authorized event landing strip and such ultra-light and helicopter take-off and landing areas designated for Burning Man event staff and participants, law enforcement, and emergency medical services.

• Emergency aircraft such as Care Flight, Sheriff's Office, or Medical Ambulance Transport System helicopters engaged in official business may land in other locations when circumstances require it.

• Landings or take-offs of lighter-than-air craft previously approved by the BLM authorized officer.

• Possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage by the driver or operator of any motorized vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is in motion is prohibited.

• Definitions:

○ Open container—any bottle can or other container which contains an alcoholic beverage, if that container does not have a closed top or lid for which the seal has not been broken. If the container has been opened one or more times, and the lid or top has been replaced, that container is an open container.

○ Possession of an open container—includes any open container which is physically possessed by the driver or operator, or which is adjacent to and reachable by that driver or operator. This includes containers in a cup holder or rack adjacent to the driver or operator, containers on a vehicle floor next to the driver or operator, and containers on a seat or console area next to a driver or operator.

• Possession of alcohol by minors is prohibited.

○ The following are prohibited:

▪ Consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age on public lands.

▪ Selling, offering to sell, or otherwise furnishing or supplying any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age on public lands.

○ This section does not apply to the selling, handling, serving or transporting of alcoholic beverages by a person in the course of his lawful employment by a licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer of alcoholic beverages.

Discharge and possession of firearms is prohibited. Law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity are exempted from the prohibition.

The permitted event area and all other parts of the public closure area are closed to any person who:

a. Has been evicted from the event by the permit holder, Black Rock City LLC, whether or not such eviction was requested by BLM.

b. Has been ordered by a BLM law enforcement officer to leave the area of the permitted event.

Permit holder BRC LLC and BLM law enforcement officers may evict event ticket holders for “just cause” and the event ticket holder must immediately depart from the event public closure area and not return to the event public closure area during the closure period.

Just cause includes, but is not limited to:

a. Repeated violations of any permit stipulations, closure orders or regulations in Title 43 CFR;

b. Commission of an assault, fight, threatening, menacing, or similar conduct that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace;

c. Possession of prohibited weapons;

d. Persons returning to the event after they have been arrested by an event law enforcement officer, transported to a jail facility and released from custody on bail. (Note: persons returning after being arrested and released will be allowed to re-enter event only to obtain personal property under the escort of law enforcement officers and/or BRC LLC staff.)

e. Persons cited and released for a criminal offense by BLM and/or the Pershing County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) whose identity information received from the subject cannot be verified through personal possession of ID/documents, identity data base checks or telephonic verification from a credible person not at the event.

Dumping wastewater (grey or black) is prohibited.

1.2. Between August 24, 2007 and September 3, 2007 inclusive:

Public camping is prohibited. Burning Man event ticket holders and BLM authorized event management-related camps within the event area as described below are exempt from the camping closure.

Motor vehicle use is prohibited. The following exceptions apply: participant arrival and departure on designated routes; vehicles registered with Burning Man; Black Rock City LLC staff and support; BLM, medical, law enforcement, and firefighting vehicles; and motorized skateboards and scooters with or without handlebars.

Vehicles must be registered with Black Rock City LLC and drivers must display evidence of registration at all times. Such registration must be displayed so that it is visible to the rear of the vehicle while it is in motion.

Vehicle use that creates a dust plume higher than the top of the vehicle is prohibited.

The use, sale or possession of personal fireworks within the public closure area is prohibited.

The following exceptions apply: Uses of fireworks approved by Black Rock City LLC and used as part of an official Burning Man art burn event.

The ignition of fires on the surface of the Black Rock Playa without a burn blanket or burn pan is prohibited. The following exceptions apply: Registered Burning Man art burn events, licensed mutant vehicles, and portable barbeques, grills or elevated torches or lanterns.

2. The Event Area is located within the following legally described locations:

2.1. Between August 10, 2007 and August 25 and between September 4 and September 17, 2007 inclusive:

Public camping is prohibited. Black Rock City LLC authorized staff, contractors, and others authorized to assist with construction or clean-up of art exhibits and theme camps are exempt from the camping closure.

2.2. Between August 24, 2007 and September 3, 2007 inclusive:

No person shall be present within the event area unless that person: possesses a valid ticket to attend the event; is an employee or authorized volunteer with the BLM, a law enforcement agency, emergency medical service provider, fire protection provider, or another public agency working at the event and the employee is assigned to the event; or is a person working at or attending the event on behalf of the event organizers, BRC LLC.

Possession of weapons is prohibited, subject to the following exceptions: County, state, tribal and federal law enforcement personnel, or any person authorized by federal law to possess a weapon.

“Weapon” means a firearm, compressed gas or spring powered pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross bow, blowgun, spear gun, hand throwable spear, sling shot, irritant gas device, explosive device or any other implement designed to discharge missiles, and includes any weapon the possession of which is prohibited by state law.

Public camping is prohibited. Burning Man event ticket holders who are camped in designated areas provided by Black Rock City LLC and ticket holders who are camped in the authorized “pilot camp” and BLM authorized event management-related camps are exempt from the camping closure. Black Rock City LLC authorized staff, contractors, and other authorized participants are exempt from the camping closure.

The DRMP/DEIS for the Revision of Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon BLM Districts has developed and analyzed four alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) for managing approximately 2,550,000 acres of Federal land, mostly revested Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands, within the Western Oregon planning area. BLM has analyzed revision of six RMPs with this single EIS. The RMPs being revised are the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Coos Bay District RMPs and the Klamath Falls Resource Area RMP in the Lakeview District.

Public comments received during scoping played an important role in shaping the alternatives, which are described and analyzed in the DRMP/DEIS.

The No Action Alternative maintains the decisions in the existing RMPs. Alternative One creates late-successional management areas similar to the large late-successional reserves in the no action alternative, applies new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provides for intensive forest management on other areas.

Alternative Two designates late successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, applies new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provides for intensive timber management on other areas.

Alternative Three manages most of the land base for timber production under long (240-360 years, depending on the area) rotations, or uneven-aged management in fire-prone ecosystems, in order to provide late-successional habitat across the landscape. Six sub-alternatives, which are variations of the three action alternatives, are also analyzed.

The major resource management plan issues include:

• Providing a sustainable supply of wood and other forest products as mandated by the O&C Lands Act, while also meeting other applicable laws.

• Providing for conservation of species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

• Contributing to meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

• Reducing the risk of wildfire and integrating fire back into the ecosystem.

The preferred alternative designates 93 of the 124 existing and potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) considered in detail. Many of the ACECs are also designated Research Natural Areas (RNA) or Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA).

In the Salem District, 19 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Salem District RMP: Crabtree Complex RNA/ONA (1,231 acres); Elk Creek (784 acres); Forest Peak RNA (155 acres); Grass Mountain RNA (930 acres); High Peak—Moon Creek RNA (1,490 acres); Jackson Bend (15 acres); Little Sink (81 acres); Lost Prairie (61 acres); Marys Peak ONA (353 acres); Middle Santiam Terrace (182 acres); Nestucca River (1,163); Rickreall Ridge (368 acres); Saddleback Mountain RNA (300 acres); Sandy River Gorge ONA (9,780 acres); The Butte RNA (39 acres); Valley of the Giants ONA (1,311 acres); Walker Flat (11 acres); Yampo (13 acres); and Yaquina Head ONA (91 acres). Five existing ACECs are not carried forward from the Salem District RMP: North Santiam (15 acres); Soosap Meadows (343 acres); White Rock Fen (55 acres); Wilhoit Springs (133 acres); and Williams Lake (90 acres). Six potential ACECs are designated: Little North Fork Wilson River (1,822 acres); Marys Peak B (75 acres); Mill Creek Ridge (114 acres); Molalla Meadows (205 acres); Silt Creek (140 acres); and Waterloo (9 acres). Five potential ACECs are not designated: Beaver Creek (44 acres); Lower Scappoose Eagle (179 acres); McCully Mountain (101 acres); Snow Peak (1,667 acres); and Wells Island (73 acres).

In the Eugene District, 9 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Eugene District RMP: Camas Swale RNA (308 acres); Cottage Grove Lake RFI (15 acres); Fox Hollow RNA (159 acres); Grassy Mountain (74 acres); Heceta Sand Dunes ONA (210 acres); Horse Rock Ridge RNA (378 acres); Hult Marsh (177 acres); Mohawk RNA (290 acres); and Upper Elk Meadows RNA (217 acres). Three existing ACECs are not carried forward from the Eugene District RMP: Coburg Hills RFI (855 acres); Cougar Mountain Yew Grove (90 acres); and Dorena Lake RFI (18 acres). Six potential ACECs are designated: Dorena Prairie (8 acres); Esmond Lake (86 acres); Lorane Ponderosa Pine (104 acres); McGowan Meadow (75 acres); Oak Basin Prairies (223 acres); and Willamette Valley Prairie/Oak and Pine Area (1,486 acres). Two potential ACECs are not designated: Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River (9,765 acres); and Taylor Creek (155 acres).

In the Roseburg District, 8 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Roseburg District RMP: Bear Gulch RNA (351 acres); Beatty Creek RNA (864 acres); Bushnell-Irwin Rocks RNA (1,085 acres); Myrtle Island RNA (19 acres); North Bank (6,162 acres); North Myrtle Creek RNA (453 acres); Red Pond RNA (141 acres); and Tater Hill RNA (303 acres). Two existing ACECs are not carried forward from the Roseburg RMP: North Umpqua River (1,791 acres); and Umpqua River Wildlife Area (855 acres). One potential ACEC is designated: Callahan Meadows (34 acres). Two potential ACECs are not designated: China Ditch (60 acres); and Stouts Creek (64 acres).

In the Coos Bay District, 9 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Coos Bay RMP: Cherry Creek RNA (592 acres); China Wall (302 acres); Hunter Creek Bog (721 acres); New River (876 acres); North Fork Chetco (603 acres); North Fork Coquille River (311 acres); North Fork Hunter Creek (1,757 acres); North Spit (682 acres); and Tioga Creek (42 acres). Two existing ACECs are not carried forward from the Coos Bay RMP: Upper Rock Creek (472 acres); and Wassen Creek (3,394 acres). Three potential ACECs are designated: Rocky Peak (1,827 acres); Roman Nose (205 acres); and Steel Creek (1,381 acres). Two potential ACECs are not designated: Brownson Ridge (399 acres); and Euphoria Ridge (241 acres). In the Medford District, 18 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Medford RMP: Bobby Creek RNA (1,915 acres); Brewer Spruce RNA (1,707 acres); Crooks Creek (147 acres); Eight Dollar Mountain (1,249 acres); French Flat (651 acres); Grayback Glades RNA (1,022 acres); Holton Creek RNA (421 acres); King Mountain Rock Garden (68 acres); Lost Lake RNA (387 acres); North Fork Silver Creek RNA (499 acres); Oregon Gulch RNA (1,051 acres); Pipe Fork RNA (516 acres); Poverty Flat (29 acres); Rough and Ready (1,189 acres); Round Top Butte RNA (605 acres); Scotch Creek RNA (1,799 acres); Table Rocks ONA (1,244 acres); and Woodcock Bog RNA (265 acres). Six existing ACECs are not carried forward from the Medford RMP: Baker Cypress (11 acres); Hole-In-The-Rock (63 acres); Hoxie Creek (255 acres); Moon Prairie (92 acres); Sterling Mine Ditch (143 acres); and Tin Cup (83 acres). Five potential ACECs are designated: Cobleigh Road (261 acres); Dakubetede Wildland (1,796 acres); East Fork Whiskey Creek (3,188 acres); Pickett Creek (32 acres); and Waldo-Takilma (1,760 acres). Two potential ACECs are not designated: Long Gulch (1,020 acres); and Reeves Creek (117 acres).

In the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, 5 existing ACECs are carried forward from the Klamath Falls RMP: Miller Creek (939 acres); Old Baldy RNA (355 acres); Upper Klamath River (5,092 acres); Wood River Wetland (3,225 acres); and Yainax Butte (707 acres). Four potential ACECs are designated: Bumpheads (112 acres); Four Mile Wetland (1,173 acres); Tunnel Creek (72 acres); and Upper Klamath River Addition (910 acres).

Detailed information on resource use limitations for each ACEC is contained in Chapter 2 and Appendix M of the DRMP/DEIS.

Comments and information submitted on the DRMP/DEIS, including names, e-mail addresses, and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The agenda will include the following topics: Forest Service and BLM recreation fee proposals (Recreation RAC Subcommittee) and a report from the Salmon River Working Group subcommittee (RAC). Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements. More information is available at http://www.blm.gov/rac/id/id_index.htm .

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council in advance of or at the meeting. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for receiving public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

The El Mirage Cooperative Management Area qualifies as a site wherein visitors can be charged a “Special Recreation Permit Fee” authorized under section 3(h) of the Federal Lands Recreation and Enhancement Act (REA), 16 U.S.C. 6801 et seq. In accordance with REA, and implementing regulations at 43 CFR Part 2930, visitors participating in OHV use (e.g., 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles, quads, wind sails), would purchase a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) to operate their vehicle within the cooperative use area. The operators of each primary entry vehicle operating within the recreation area would be required to purchase and display the permit. Permits would expire on September 30 following issuance, regardless of when the permit was purchased. An opportunity to purchase an individual SRP pass either for the day or for a 7-day period would be available onsite to facilitate less frequent users. The BLM provides individual special recreation permits for management of special areas as specified in 43 CFR 2932.11. and in REA under section 3(h). The America the Beautiful—The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass ( i.e., the Interagency Annual Pass, Interagency Senior Pass, Interagency Access Pass, and Interagency Volunteer Pass) would not be honored and do not apply to the SRP fee. The National Parks Pass with Golden Eagle Hologram, Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access Passports would also not be honored and do not apply to the SRP fee. The El Mirage Cooperative Management Area is a popular off-highway vehicle recreation area offering significant opportunities for outdoor recreation and has received substantial Federal investment. The BLM's commitment is to find the proper balance between public use and the protection of resources. The BLM's policy is to collect fees at all specialized recreation sites, or where the BLM at Federal expense provides facilities, equipment or services in connection with outdoor use. In an effort to meet increasing demands for services and maintenance of existing facilities, routes and trails, the BLM would implement a fee program for the El Mirage Cooperative Management Area. The BLM's mission for the El Mirage Cooperative Management Fee Collection Project (Project) is to ensure that funding is available to maintain existing facilities and recreational opportunities, to provide for law enforcement presence, to develop additional services, and to protect resources. This mission entails communication with those who will be most directly affected by the Project, including recreationists, other recreation providers, neighbors, and those who will have a stake in solving concerns that may arise throughout the life of the Project, such as elected officials and other agencies.

On August 24, 1990, the BLM published the final Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the El Mirage Cooperative Management Area. This Management Plan and EA considered various ways to minimize the potential for resource damage from authorized uses, including cross-country OHV use. The BLM signed a decision record for this EA on January 19, 1990 and subsequently signed a Decision Record approving the proposed action in the Management Plan on June 29, 1990. The County of San Bernardino, County of Los Angeles, and California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission and Division, as cooperators to the El Mirage Cooperative Management Area, signed their concurrence with the actions in the Management Plan in June 1990.

In December 2004, REA was signed into law. REA provides authority for 10 years for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees for use of some Federal recreation lands and waters, and contains specific provisions addressing public involvement in the establishment of recreation fees, including a requirement that Recreation Resource Advisory Committees or Councils have the opportunity to make recommendations regarding establishment of such fees. REA also directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to publish advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established under their respective jurisdictions.

The 1990 Management Plan allows for recreation opportunities, the issuance of use permits, and the charging of fees for each primary vehicle for use of the El Mirage Cooperative Management Area. The Barstow Field Office Business Plan prepared pursuant to REA and BLM recreation fee program policy also addresses the establishment of a permit process and the collection of user fees. This Business Plan, in conjunction with the Management Plan, establishes the rationale for charging recreation fees. In accordance with the BLM recreation fee program policy, the Business Plan explains the fee collection process, and outlines how the fees will be used at the El Mirage Cooperative Management Area. The BLM has notified and involved the public at each stage of the planning process, including the proposal to collect fees. Fee amounts will be posted on-site, and at the Barstow Field Office, and copies of the Business Plan will be available at the Barstow Field Office and the BLM California State Office.

The BLM welcomes public comments on this proposal. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Title: Visibility Valuation in National Parks and Wilderness Areas: Pre-Test and Pilot Test.

Bureau Form Number(s): None.

OMB Number: To be requested.

Expiration Date: To be requested.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Description of Need: The Clean Air Act includes provisions designed to maintain and enhance visibility at national parks and wilderness areas (Sections 169A, 169B, and 110(a)(2)(j)). The NPS is directed by its Organic Act to “conserve the scenery * * * unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 U.S.C. 1) and the Clean Air Act charges the NPS with an “affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values (including visibility)” (42 U.S.C. 7475(d)(2)(B)). Therefore, the NPS believes it is imperative that the value of visibility changes is adequately represented in cost-benefit analyses related to State and Federal efforts that may affect visibility (including the Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR Part 51). Although several studies were conducted to estimate visibility benefits in the 1970s and 1980s, methodologies for estimating the benefits of improvements in environmental goods have advanced signifcantly since that time. Furthermore, baseline visibility conditions in national parks and wilderness areas have changed significantly over the last few decades. As a result, updated estimates of benefits are required.

Current evaluation of Federal and state air quality legislation or regulations, as well as regional plans or policies that impact NPS-managed areas, is based on virility valuation information in Chestnut and Rowe, 1990 (e.g., see EPA, 2005). The vintage of this study aside, several limitations have been identified by regulators and stakeholders alike, including its limited sample frame (EPA, 2005; Leggett et al., 2004). Thus, the NPS seeks current visibility valuation information that will permit accurate evaluation of programs and policies affecting visibility in NPS-managed areas.

The NPS plans to conduct a nationwide stated preference survey to estimate the value of visibility changes in national parks and wilderness areas. Stated-preference surveys use carefully designed questions to elicit respondents' willingness to pay for improvements in environmental quality. A general population stated-preference survey is required in this case, as many U.S. citizens may be willing to pay to improve visibility at national parks and wilderness areas, even if they do not use these areas. Stated-preference surveys are the only methodology available to estimate these non-use values. But to ensure that the nationwide survey is unbiased and readily understood by respondents, and that the likely effect of non-response on benefit estimates is known, the pre-test and pilot test must first be conducted.

The pre-testing will be done through focus groups, which will be used to develop and refine a survey instrument for the pilot study. Twelve focus groups will be conducted, with approximately 10 participants in each group (120 in total). Thus, a sufficient number of responses will be gathered to evaluate the information presentation, reliability, internal consistency, response variability, and other properties of the draft survey. Results will be used to make improvements to the survey instrument. NPS will proceed iteratively, modifying the draft survey instrument after each focus group to ensure that the wording of the questions is clear and unbiased, and effectively address the relevant issues.

The pilot study will be designed to account for the potential impact of mail survey non-response on benefit estimates. The pilot study will involve a split-sample comparison between a mail and in-person survey. Respondents will be asked to complete the survey instrument developed during the pre-testing stage. The results will ultimately be used to adjust the benefit estimates obtained in the nationwide survey for potential non-response bias. The final content of the pilot survey instrument will depend on the pre-testing results. At a minimum, the survey will describe the characteristics of various visibility improvement programs and ask respondents to select a preferred program. The survey will also include socio-demographic questions and questions designed to evaluate the respondents' motivation in selecting a preferred program. Surveys will be conducted with approximately 800 individuals.

For this pilot study, 16 neighborhoods will be selected in two metropolitan areas (Phoenix, AZ and Syracuse, NY). Each neighborhood sample will be split into two groups, with 50 households assigned to a mail survey group and 50 households assigned to an in-person survey group. The in-person survey will be conducted in a manner that minimizes the differences between the two survey modes.

Comments are invited on: (1) The practical utility of the information being gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Frequency of collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Residents of Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, Sacramento, CA (focus groups) and Phoenix, AZ and Syracuse, NY (response rate pilot study).

Estimated average number or respondents: Focus groups: 1,200 in recruitment and 120 in pre-testing activities. Pilot study: 480 mail refusals, 320 in-person refusals, and 800 respondents.

Estimated average number of responses: 920 (120 responses for focus groups; 800 responses for pilot study).

Estimated average time burden per respondent: 2.5 hours for focus group respondents, 20 minutes for pilot survey respondents.

Frequency of response: 1 time per respondent.