Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the pest risk analysis; (2) the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or (3) changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on October 4, 2007 (72 FR 56719-56720, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0122), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of arugula leaves with stems from Panama. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on December 3, 2007. We did not receive any comments by that date.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States of arugula leaves with stems from Panama subject to the requirement that each consignment of arugula be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by Panama's national plant protection organization to document that the consignment has been inspected and found practically free of pests.

This condition will be listed in the fruits and vegetables manual (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf ). In addition to this specific measure, the arugula will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

On November 2, and November 9, 2007 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 62207; 63555) 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 service 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:

NPA: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY.

Coverage: C-List for the total Government requirements for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Minneapolis, MN.

Contracting Activity: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services (MRPBS), Minneapolis, MN.

Coverage: 100,000 sets in any combination of the above products. C-List for the requirements of the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

NPA: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX.

Contracting Activity: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

Service Type/Location: Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 227 N. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL.

NPA: Challenge Enterprises of North Florida, Inc., Green Cove Springs, FL.

Contracting Activity: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Services, Chamblee, GA.

Service Type/Location: Document Destruction, Southwest VA Consolidated Mail-Out Pharmacy (CMOP), 3675 E. Britania Dr., Tucson, AZ.

NPA: Beacon Group SW, Inc., Tucson, AZ.

Contracting Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs, Consolidated Mail-Out Pharmacy (CMOP), Tucson, AZ.

On November 9, 2007 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 63555) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product 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 product deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product is deleted from the Procurement List:

NPA: Middle Georgia Diversified Industries, Inc., Dublin, GA.

Contracting Activity: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

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

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

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

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

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service 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 service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

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

The following service is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Service Type/Location: Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 412 N. Cedar Bluff Rd, Knoxville, TN.

Service Type/Location: Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 710 Locust St., Knoxville, TN.

NPA: Goodwill Industries—Knoxville, Inc., Knoxville, TN.

Contracting Activity: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Chamblee, GA.

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 product 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 product proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

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

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

NSN: 7520-01-354-2304.

NPA: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX.

Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr., New York, NY.

The Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 72 FR 42393 (April 2, 2007) ( Notice of Initiation ).

As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. See Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 42393 (August 2, 2007).

On November 28, 2007, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela; 72 FR 67965 (December 3, 2007), and USITC Publication 3963 (November 2007), (Inv. No. 731-TA-929-931) (Review).

For purposes of these orders, the products covered are all forms, sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.

The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a ferro alloy with the following chemical specifications: minimum 55 percent manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is used in the manufacture of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as motor lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon silicomangense is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This scope covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope remains dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of continuation of these orders will be November 30, 2007. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than October 2012.

This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered along with other issues at the NCWM Interim Meeting. Comments will be taken on these and other issues during several public comment sessions. At this stage, the items are proposals. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept comments and where they will finalize recommendations for NCWM consideration and possible adoption at its Annual Meeting to be held July 13 to 17, 2008, at the Sheraton Burlington Hotel in Burlington, Vermont. The Committees may withdraw or carry over items that need additional development.

The Specifications and Tolerances Committee will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices (NIST Handbook 44).” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial measurement applications, that is, devices that are normally used to buy from or sell to the general public or used for determining the quantity of product sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of legal metrology and engine fuel quality” and NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas, but is not inclusive of all agenda items. As a result, the following items are not consecutively numbered.

The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44:

Item 310-2. Appendix D—Definition of Electronic Devices, Software-Based: This item removes the terms “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose” and instead defines software-based devices as either “embedded software devices (Type P)” or “programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U)”.

Item 330-1. Temperature Compensation for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code: This is a proposal to add provisions to Handbook 44 to allow retail motor fuel dispensers to be equipped with the automatic means to deliver product with the volume compensated to a reference temperature. (See also Item 232-1 below under the Laws and Regulations Committee.)

Item 331-1. Meter Size (Marking Requirements): This is a proposal to require meter size markings on vehicle tank meters, except for milk meters.

Item 331-3. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products: This proposal adds provisions to Handbook 44, which defines the period of use and conditions of use when selling fuel through a device equipped with automatic temperature compensation capabilities.

Item 358-1. A.1. General., Note 7 in Table S.4.1.b., and Appendix D. Definitions: This proposal adds new definitions for a “hexahedron” and an “irregularly shaped object” and clarifies a complex marking requirement that currently exists in this code.

Items 358-2. Value of Dimension/Volume Division Value, 358-3 Position Test and 358-4 Test Objects: These proposals add requirements to those devices capable of measuring irregularly shaped objects.

The following item is a proposal to amend NIST Handbook 130:

Item 232-1. Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products: Several proposals will be considered that would allow temperature compensation to take place on a voluntary or mandatory basis or limit compensation to metering systems with certain flow capacities or specific sales applications. Most of the proposals would allow compensation to occur only if certain conditions are met by the seller.

Item 232-2. Biodiesel and Fuel Ethanol Labeling: This item requires the identification and labeling of biodiesel fuels and blends at retail service stations.

In August 2001, we received a petition from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (subsequently renamed the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD) and James R. Chambers requesting us to list the Atlantic white marlin ( Tetrapturus albidus ) as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. We convened a status review team (SRT) to assess the species' status and the degree of threat to the species with regard to section 4(a)(1) factors in the ESA. The 2002 SRT determined that two of these section 4(a)(1) factors were of concern for white marlin: overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. While the 2002 SRT concluded that the white marlin stock had not declined to levels at which it was then in danger of extinction, it noted that the stock could decline to a level that would warrant ESA protection if fishing mortality was not reduced significantly and relatively quickly. After considering the conclusions of the 2002 SRT, we determined that listing white marlin was not warranted (67 FR 57204; September 9, 2002). Subsequently, CBD and the Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) filed a complaint in the district court for the District of Columbia challenging our listing decision. A settlement agreement was reached wherein it was agreed that we would revisit the status of the white marlin following the 2006 stock assessment by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

Following ICCAT's completion of its 2006 white marlin stock assessment, we announced that a status review of the Atlantic white marlin was initiated and solicited information regarding the status of and threats to the species (71 FR 76639; December 21, 2006). NMFS' Southest Regional Office (SERO) convened a new biological review team (BRT) to commence a new comprehensive status review. This BRT incorporated results from both the 2002 and 2006 ICCAT stock assessments, and reviewed the 2002 status review document, papers prepared at workshops and symposia to assist in the new stock assessment, current journal articles, reports from the 2004 billfish grant program, information submitted in response to our request for additional information, presentations by invited experts, and existing management of the fisheries in order to determine the status of and threats to the white marlin.

The BRT prepared a status review document that represents their efforts to compile and evaluate the best scientific and commercial data available on white marlin to date. The BRT sought and incorporated peer review comments on the status review document. The BRT submitted their final status review document to SERO on December 10, 2007. Copies of the status review document are available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

White marlin are billfish (Family Istiophoridae) that inhabit the tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. Distribution of white marlin differs from the blue marlin ( Makaira nigricans ) and sailfish ( Istiophorus platypterus ) that range throughout both the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions. White marlin exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns, with females growing larger than males. White marlin are primarily general piscivores, but also feed on squid and other prey items. Spawning activity occurs during the spring (March through June) in northwestern Atlantic tropical and sub-tropical waters marked by relatively high surface temperatures (20°-29°C) and salinities (> 35 ppt). It is believed there are at least five spawning areas in the western north Atlantic: northeast of Little Bahama Bank off the Abaco Islands; northwest of Grand Bahama Island; southwest of Bermuda; the Mona Passage, east of the Dominican Republic; and the Gulf of Mexico. There is a paucity of information regarding the age and growth of white marlin.

Recently both morphometric and genetic information has provided evidence that there is a fifth species of Istiophoridae in the western North Atlantic - the roundscale spearfish ( T. georgii ). The roundscale spearfish closely resembles the white marlin, and the two may often be confused. Roundscale spearfish are not hybrids; they have a clearly different genetic lineage to sympatric billfish species. Limited data indicate that the roundscale spearfish is distributed widely in the western North Atlantic and is particularly abundant in the Sargasso Sea. Little is known about the life history of the roundscale spearfish. Further, the so-called “hatchet marlin” ( Tetrapturus sp.), another putative congener that exhibits truncated dorsal and anal fins, is likely a phenotypic expression exhibited in both roundscale spearfish and white marlin and not a separate species.

We determined that the Atlantic white marlin constitutes a single species throughout the Atlantic Ocean, there are no populations that warrant consideration of listing in a significant portion of the species' range, and there are no populations of the species that meet the discrete and significant standards set forth in our policy regarding recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). There is no information that indicates that any segment of the white marlin population is discrete or distinct, or that there is any specific geographic area within the Atlantic Ocean that should be considered more or less significant than another. White marlin are considered to be a panmictic species: individuals move about freely within the Atlantic Ocean, over thousands of miles, and breed freely with other members of the population. Presence of larvae suggests there are at least five spawning areas in the western north Atlantic Ocean, and there is no evidence to suggest special nursery areas. No population of white marlin is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon, nor is there biological, ecological, or genetic evidence to suggest unusual or unique populations, or populations that are more at risk than others.

Atlantic billfish, including white marlin, have historically been landed as incidental catch of foreign and domestic commercial pelagic longline fisheries, or in directed recreational and artisanal fisheries. The majority of billfish fishing mortality in the Atlantic Ocean results from pelagic longline fisheries: total Atlantic-wide longline landings of white marlin mostly range between 1,000 to 2,000 metric tons (mt) annually, of which the United States accounts for about 5 percent. While the directed commercial effort is principally targeted toward tuna species and swordfish, billfish occur in the same area as these other pelagic species, making them susceptible to the gear. Although total Atlantic-wide white marlin landings from longline fisheries have fluctuated between 610 and 1,966 mt over the past 25 years, total landings have declined annually from 1,242 mt to 610 mt between 2000 and 2004 (the last year for which landings data are available). The U.S. proportion of total Atlantic-wide white marlin landings has been reduced from a 25-year average of 5 percent to 3 percent of the 2000-2004 mean reported total (29 mt of 861 mt total).

White marlin, along with other billfish and tunas, are managed internationally by the member nations of theICCAT). ICCAT, through the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics, conducts regular stock assessments for species under its purview: white marlin stock assessments were conducted in 2002 and 2006, and a 2010 assessment is scheduled. By consensus ICCAT adopts binding resolutions and makes recommendations to manage for maximum catch of species under its purview. ICCAT's Compliance Committee tracks landings and makes official determinations of non-compliance.

Recreational fishers seek Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish as highly-prized species in the United States, Venezuela, Bahamas, Brazil, and many countries in the Caribbean Sea and west coast of Africa. White marlin are managed in the United States under the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and previously under the Billfish FMP. The FMP prohibits retention, landing, or sale of billfish (including white marlin) caught by commercial fishing vessels in U.S. waters, reserving those species for recreational anglers. The objective of the FMP is to end overfishing and rebuild stocks. In addition, the FMP seeks to coordinate domestic regulations with international management measures to control Atlantic-wide fishing mortality. In the United States, Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and Atlantic sailfish can be landed only by recreational fishermen fishing from either private vessels or charterboats.

Population estimates available for the 2007 status review indicate that the number of white marlin in the size range vulnerable to the commercial longline fishery is between 100,000 and 2,000,000, likely around 200,000, and that the current stock of white marlin is on the order of 20 percent carrying capacity (i.e., K) or greater. Population abundance trajectories in the 2006 ICCAT stock assessment no longer exhibit the long-term downward trend in population abundance seen in the 2002 ICCAT stock assessment; population estimates indicate both an increase in number and in the ratio of current biomass to unfished biomass (i.e., B/K). Atlantic-wide white marlin landings, as reported by ICCAT, have been continually reduced since 1996, and have been less than 1,000 mt for the last 4 years. The calculated probabilities of white marlin biomass under five fishing mortality projections considered (from 0.16 - 0.32) were more optimistic in 2007 relative to 2002. Estimates of fishing mortality (i.e., F) decreased annually from 17 percent in 2002 to 9 percent in 2006.

We agree with the BRT that white marlin population models likely include a composite of data for white marlin and roundscale spearfish combined, as roundscale spearfish have been recorded as white marlin, and hence, all stock assessment parameters (including abundance, landings, fishing mortality) reflect the status of the two species combined. No information is available describing interspecific competition, or potential geographic overlap/separation, between the roundscale spearfish and white marlin. Limited data suggest the roundscale spearfish is widely distributed in the western North Atlantic, and abundant in the Sargasso Sea area during the winter period. It is unknown whether the proportion of either species has changed over time, and it is not possible to separate the two species in the historical catch records.

It is pragmatic to conclude that the data used in the ICCAT white marlin stock assessments is overwhelmingly dominated by white marlin ( T. albidus ) relative to roundscale spearfish ( T. georgii ). Roundscale spearfish have been intermittently referenced in the scientific literature since 1840. Since then, it has taken more than 150 years to observe a sufficient number of specimens to clearly identify the species via genetic tissues and morphometrics. There is no information available suggesting differences between the species that would indicate that either species has a greater or less susceptibility to be caught in the fishery, nor information regarding likelihood of catchability differences between species by gear type, baits, season, or geographic area. Given the difficulty in visually differentiating the roundscale spearfish from the white marlin (scale morphology and relationship between length of anal fin relative to distance between anus and leading edge of anal fin), it is easy to understand why confusion between the species has occurred. Meanwhile, journal articles noting the roundscale spearfish have been infrequent, indicating rarity of species; a greater number of specimens would have led to an earlier clarification between the two species. The only data available regarding proportion of white marlin to roundscale spearfish are extremely limited in time and space; a genetic re-analysis of specimens identified at the dock as white marlin over the last few years during a single tournament confirmed that 17.5 percent were actually roundscale spearfish. Therefore, we conclude that while based on a composite of the two species, the ICCAT stock assessment indicators (e.g., K) for white marlin overwhelmingly reflect the status of the white marlin.

We concur with the BRT's finding that there is no indication depensation is occurring. There is no evidence that any white marlin size class has been lost, nor any reason to expect one to be lost. Based on catch distributions from 1950 through 2004, there is no evidence of range constriction for white marlin. Both the BRT and NMFS find that compliance with ICCAT requirements by member nations and white marlin population trends improved between 2002 and 2006 as exhibited through real catch reductions and stable/increasing catch per unit effort (CPUE); this is an expected response to reduced fishing mortality. Notably, CPUE would also respond similarly to a large number of year classes in the population and/or surprisingly stable recruitment from year to year. While the extent of compliance with ICCAT recommendations and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing are not completely understood, the best available information indicates that the current regulatory mechanisms have been sufficient to prevent continued stock decline of white marlin. We conclude that it is likely that, under current management regimes, the white marlin stock will remain stable or continue to increase. It appears that both decreasing population size and biomass, and sustained increase in fishing mortality (i.e., F), have been abated by management efforts.

The 2007 BRT examined the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors as they apply to white marlin: 1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The two criteria the BRT was most concerned about for white marlin were overutilization and the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The BRT equated overfishing with overutilization and determined that the white marlin are not being overutilized, as population abundances no longer exhibit the 2002 downward trend, and population estimates indicate both an increase in number and the ratio of current biomass to unfished biomass; we agree that both terms refer to overexploitation to a point of diminishing returns.

We examined the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors relative to white marlin based on the status review document, and our conclusions for each follow: 1) There is no evidence of present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its range or habitat; 2) overutilization has previously occurred, but is not currently occurring; 3) there is no evidence that predation or disease is affecting the white marlin; 4) current regulatory mechanisms are adequate to prevent continued stock decline of white marlin; and 5) no natural or manmade factors were identified that were affecting the continued existence of the white marlin. While white marlin are almost certainly overfished as evidenced by a long history of exploitation that has probably depleted the population below the management target, overfishing, and thus overutilization, does not appear to be occurring today as current ratios of fishing mortality relative to the largest sustainable catch (i.e., F/Fmsy) estimates are reported as both greater and less than one depending on the index. Once overfishing for a species has ended, it may take several years before the stock will no longer be considered overfished. A population can be considered to be overfished without undergoing overfishing (i.e., there is a lag effect as the population recovers from overfishing).

We concur with the BRT that domestic measures by the United States alone will have a negligible impact on the stock status of white marlin. Mandatory measures implemented by ICCAT for all member countries appear to be having some success, as the most recent stock assessment indicates that a slight increase was observed in the 2001-2004 white marlin abundance estimates. It is noteworthy that this increasing trend was observed even though the 67 percent reduction in white marlin landings mandated by ICCAT in 2000 has not yet been achieved (average catch from 2000 - 2004 was 36 percent of the maximum catch in 1996 or 1999). There is most likely not full compliance by all parties with all management measures, and there may be an unknown impact from IUU fishing. Regardless, real catch reductions are apparent in the data, and, under current management regimes, it is likely the white marlin stock will remain stable or continue to increase.

We believe that the metrics developed by the BRT to determine endangered or threatened status of the white marlin after a review of the quantitative and qualitative guidelines used by other conservation organizations (American Fisheries Society (AFS), World Conservation Union (IUCN), and Convention for the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES)) were appropriate. Because white marlin had medium productivity, the BRT used logic set forth by AFS to determine that biomass at or less than 1 percent of carrying capacity (i.e., B/K ≤ 1) combined with other biological benchmarks would be an appropriate status-based listing threshold. At this time we have no reason to disagree with this logic and agree that AFS standards are appropriate as they were developed for marine fishes.

The BRT considered many factors in determining that, for white marlin, the proper application of the ESA criterion “foreseeable future” is 10 - 15 years. We have examined the factors identified by the BRT and further considered particular threats, life-history characteristics, and population modeling to determine a projected period by which to consider the species' status and threats. It is consistent with the purpose of the ESA that the time frame for the foreseeable future be adequate to provide for the conservation and recovery of threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. As suggested by IUCN and CITES, the period of time required to replace a spawning individual can be considered to assess risk. The BRT estimated that it would take approximately 3-5 years to replace a spawning white marlin; extrapolating to include three generations (the IUCN forecast period) would be equivalent to about 10 - 15 years. Notably, maximum age of white marlin is unknown and aging techniques are still being developed; a single tagged specimen has been reported at liberty for 18 years. Considering the best available information, we concur with the BRT that the foreseeable future for this species is within 15 years.

The BRT determined that the major threat to the white marlin is fishing mortality. Therefore, it established a two-tiered metric to assess status of white marlin: first establish if B/K was at or less then 0.01, then consider other additive criteria that would be indicative of excessive fishing pressure. If B/K is greater than 0.01, then the white marlin is not in danger of extinction and is not likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The additive criteria included population parameters such as population structure by age class, population size and biomass, depensation; distribution through geographic range; and rate of fishing mortality. The BRT used this tiered approach realizing that B/K was an indicator of the overall viability of the population, but other criteria were also important.

We do not disagree with using biomass relative to carrying capacity as a metric by which to indicate status of a species; by statute we are to use the best available scientific and commercial information available, and we believe the 2006 ICCAT stock assessment presents that information. Carrying capacity (i.e., K) is a metric used in stock assessments to indicate the maximum number of fish that can live in an area; subsequent fishing removes fish, and the biomass (total weight or volume of a species in a given area) is reduced below carrying capacity. In the case of white marlin, stock assessment reference points and models expressed with reference to carrying capacity were widely used and thus made a convenient status metric. We also agree with the BRT's approach of additive metrics: these other status indicators (i.e., decreasing trend in absolute population size or biomass; reduced range; loss of observed size classes or other evidence of recruitment failure; sustained increase in fishing mortality; increasingly rare interactions; or depensation) are sensitive to fishing pressure that complement the overall criterion of B/K with other indices. While this combination of indicators is potentially less conservative than a single population size-based threshold, it is more scientifically rigorous and, we believe, a much sounder basis for this listing decision.

For white marlin, available evidence indicates neither the carrying capacity indicator nor the additive fishing pressure indicators are currently applicable. We used the population modeling requested by the BRT to evaluate the risk of future white marlin population decline based on fishing mortality, as that is considered the major threat to white marlin. These models assessed the probability of population decline to less than 1 percent of carrying capacity at varying fishing mortality levels. Using a fishing mortality rate (i.e., F) of 0.16, which is much greater than the current rate of 0.09, results of the Bayesian Schaefer production model indicated that the probability of the white marlin population falling below a B/K of 0.01 within 15 years, and even the next 30 years was 0.

ESA section 4(b)(1)(A) requires the Secretary, in making listing determinations, to take into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of such, to protect species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas. The ICCAT manages white marlin throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Resolutions and recommendations are in place to reduce and limit landings of white marlin, encourage voluntary release of live billfish in a manner to maximize survival, rebuild white marlin, and conduct periodic stock assessments. Meanwhile, the ICCAT Compliance Committee continues to make official determinations of non-compliance and to report at the annual ICCAT meetings.

ESA section 4(b)(1)(B) requires us to give consideration to species which have been designated as requiring protection from unrestricted commerce by any foreign nation, or pursuant to any international agreement; or identified as in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, by any state agency or any agency of a foreign nation that is responsible for the conservation of the species. We are not aware of any such special protections or designations. White marlin are not afforded any protective measures or special status via the CITES or the IUCN).

We have reviewed the status of Atlantic white marlin, considering the best scientific and commercial data available. We have given consideration to conservation efforts and special designations for white marlin by states and foreign nations. The biological status of the species and consideration of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors indicate that the species is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We believe that Atlantic white marlin does not meet the ESA definition of an endangered or threatened species; therefore, the listing of Atlantic white marlin under the ESA is not warranted.

White Marlin Biological Review Team. 2007. Atlantic White Marlin Status Review. Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office. December 10, 2007. 88 pp.

This FEIS discusses in-depth two alternatives: the Preferred Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Mississippi National Guard (MSNG) proposes the renewal of the USDA-FS SUP for a 20-year timeframe and authorizes current activities and mission requirements to continue on State of Mississippi, DoD, and National Forest lands. This alternative will help meet the Army requirements associated with the Proposed Action by constructing various new ranges and facilities at Camp Shelby and allowing for the continuation of necessary maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the infrastructure at Camp Shelby. The No Action Alternative would authorize the renewal of the SUP for a 10-year timeframe (same as previous SUP) and military activities would continue as currently permitted. this alternative would not authorize the proposed construction of new ranges and facilities and improvements and improved management practices. Other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study are also addressed in the FEIS. the potential for significant impacts exists for both alternatives; however with the implementation of the ongoing and proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, the unavoidable adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Under the preferred alternative, current activities and mission requirements will continue on State of Mississippi, DoD, and National Forest lands. This alternative includes implementation of the projects and programs discussed in this FEIS, in addition to the continuation of necessary maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the military training infrastructure at Camp Shelby. Environmental consequences for the proposed actions; e.g. renewal of the SUP, and construction, operation, and maintenance of several new projects at Camp Shelby have been analyzed. The new project proposals have the potential for the following adverse impacts:

(1) Direct and/or indirect effects on habitat for other proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species such as Louisiana quillwort (federal endangered species), black pine snake (federal candidate species), and other state and USDA-FS sensitive plant species. There would be direct positive effects on the red-cockaded woodpecker when colonies are relocated into the proposed Habitat Management Area at sometime in the future.

(3) Direct and/or indirect effects on approximately 275 acres of wetlands (requiring fill of an estimated 20 acres of wetlands).

Direct effects by removal of approximately 120 acres for pine and hardwood forested areas.

(5) Direct effects by movement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of earth and resulting direct and/or indirect effects from erosion and sedimentation.

The proposed Combined Arms ARea (CAA) reconfiguration in this FEIS would result in a 4,300 acre reduction in the amount of unavoidable impacts associated with forest clearing/thinning from the scope of the CAA last addressed and approved for construction in the 1994 SUP EIS. Also associated with the CAA is the proposed Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF), which would be co-located within the CAA maneuver areas to be cleared and/or thinned and would not require any further significant timber removal. This reduction of approximately 4,300 acres of impacts is an improvement from an environmental standpoint over the original plan and it still meets military training requirements.

The No Action alternative has two subsets, one related to the SUP and the other to actions associated with mission support (construction in the cantonment area and the range and training area). In regards to the SUP, this is defined as renewal of a 10-year SUP for “continuation of military activities as presently permitted.” This alternative does not allow for improved and future mission requirements, future military construction funding, improved management practices, and a 20-year SUP permit.

A copy of the FEIS can be found at the following Web site: http://www.ngms.state.ms.us/env/Natural%20Resources/nat_resources_06.htm.

Following the 30-day waiting period, a Record of Decision will be signed.

The proposed rates for SLCA/IP firm power are designed to return an annual amount of revenue to meet the repayment of power investment, payment of interest, purchased power, OM&R expenses, and the repayment of irrigation assistance costs as required by law.

The Deputy Secretary of Energy approved Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 for firm power service on August 1, 2005. 1 Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 became effective on October 1, 2005, for a 5-year period ending September 30, 2010. Under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8, the energy rate is 10.43 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh), and the capacity rate is $4.43 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The composite rate is 25.28 mills/kWh. The Deputy Secretary of Energy also approved a rate extension for the CRSP Transmission and Ancillary Services Rates through September 30, 2010. 2

Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Lorelei Kowalski, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to: review of the revised Technology for Sustainability Subcommittee draft report, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Mid-Cycle draft report, Particulate Matter/Ozone (Air) Mid-Cycle draft report, and National Center for Environmental Research draft letter report; ORD response to the BOSC Safe Pesticides/Safe Products program review report recommendations; ORD responses to the BOSC Human Health, Eco, and Drinking Water Mid-Cycle report recommendations; update on the BOSC mid-cycle review subcommittees (Global Change and Land); update on the BOSC program review subcommittees (Human Health Risk Assessment and Homeland Security); update on the BOSC standing subcommittees (Computational Toxicology, National Exposure Research Lab, and National Center for Environmental Research); discussion of BOSC performance material requests and rating tool guidance; update on BOSC workgroups; ORD update; an update on EPA's Science Advisory Board activities; and future issues and plans. The meeting is open to the public.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lorelei Kowalski (202) 564-3408 or kowalski.lorelei@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Lorelei Kowalski, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Members of the public wishing to gain access to the conference room on the day of the meeting must contact Elaine Koerner, DFO for GNEB, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601M), OCEM, EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004; telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2586 or via e-mail at koerner.elaine@epa.gov . If you wish to make oral comments or to submit written comments to the Board, please contact DFO Koerner by January 21, 2008.

General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can be found on its web site at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb .

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Elaine Koerner at 202-564-2586. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Elaine Koerner, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 07-4924. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1206, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in which ex parte communications are subject to disclosure.

The full text of document DA 07-4924 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 07-4924 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160. Document DA 07-4924 and subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs (insert CG Docket No. 03-123 into the Proceeding block).

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 07-4924 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html .

On May 18, 2007, Hawk filed its DBRS Petition for clarification proposing DBRS as a form of TRS compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund. As described by Hawk, its proposed DBRS would use an interpreter (a “Communications Facilitator” (CF)) to sit with the deaf/blind user, place or receive conventional voice-to-voice telephone calls on his or her behalf, and interpret the ensuing conversation(s). The CF would travel to the DBRS consumer's location to assist in placing the call. Alternatively, a DBRS consumer could travel to a regional DBRS center to place a call through a CF.

The Bureau seeks comment on the DBRS Petition , including, specifically, whether DBRS falls within the definition of TRS as set forth in section 225(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). The Bureau notes, for example, that Hawk's proposed DBRS does not fit within the typical two-leg relay paradigm in which a relay center receives and places inbound and outbound calls between the end users to the relay call. Instead, the DBRS would employ a CF to assist the caller, in person, in making a telephone call.

The meeting will include presentations by the Population Health/Clinical Care Connections Workgroup and Electronic Health Records Workgroup on Recommendations to the Community; an update on the Health IT Physician Adoption Survey results; an update on the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) Interoperability Specifications; and an update on the findings from the Enhancing Data Quality in EHRs Report.

For further information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic.html. A Web cast of the Community meeting will be available on the NIH Web site at: http://www.videocast.nih.gov/.

If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 690-7151.

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

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

Under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(a)), a new drug may not be commercially marketed in the United States, imported, or exported from the United States, unless an approval of an application filed with FDA under section 505(b) or 505(j) of the act is effective with respect to such drug. Under the act, it is the sponsor's responsibility to provide the information needed by FDA to make a scientific and technical determination whether the product is safe and effective for use.

This information collection approval request is for all information requirements imposed on sponsors by the regulations under part 314 (21 CFR part 314), who apply for approval of a new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) in order to market or to continue to market a drug.

Section 314.50(a) requires that an application form (Form FDA 356h) be submitted that includes introductory information about the drug as well as a checklist of enclosures.

Section 314.50(b) requires that an index be submitted with the archival copy of the application and that it reference certain sections of the application.

Section 314.50(c) requires that a summary of the application be submitted that presents a good general synopsis of all the technical sections and other information in the application.

Section 314.50(d) requires that the NDA contain the following technical sections about the new drug: Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; nonclinical pharmacology and toxicology; human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability; microbiology; clinical data; and statistical section.

Section 314.50(e) requires the applicant to submit samples of the drug if requested by FDA. In addition, the archival copy of the application must include copies of the label and all labeling for the drug.

Section 314.50(f) requires that case report forms and tabulations be submitted with the archival copy.

Section 314.50(h) requires that patent information, as described under § 314.53, be submitted with the application. (The burden hours for § 314.50(h) are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0513 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.50(i) requires that patent certification information be submitted in section 505(b)(2) applications for patents claiming the drug, drug product, or method of use.

Section 314.50(j) requires that applicants that request a period of marketing exclusivity submit certain information with the application.

Section 314.50(k) requires that an archival, review, and field copy of the application be submitted.

Section 314.52 requires that any notice of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent to each patent owner and the NDA holder be sent by a section 505(b)(2) applicant that relies on a listed drug. A 505(b)(2) applicant is required to amend its application at the time notice is provided to include a statement certifying that the required notice has been provided. A 505(b)(2) applicant also is required to amend its application to document receipt of the required notice.

Section 314.54 sets forth the content requirements for applications filed under section 505(b)(2) of the act. (The information collection burden estimate for 505(b)(2) applications is included in table 1 of this document under the estimates for § 314.50(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (k)).

Section 314.60 sets forth reporting requirements for sponsors who amend an unapproved application.

Section 314.65 states that the sponsor must notify FDA when withdrawing an unapproved application.

Sections 314.70 and 314.71 require that supplements be submitted to FDA for certain changes to an approved application.

Section 314.72 requires sponsors to report to FDA any transfer of ownership of an application.

Section 314.80(c)(1) and (c)(2) sets forth requirements for expedited adverse drug experience postmarketing reports and followup reports, as well as for periodic adverse drug experience postmarketing reports (Form FDA 3500A). (The burden hours for § 314.80(c)(1) and (c)(2) are already approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.80(i) establishes recordkeeping requirements for reports of postmarketing adverse drug experiences. (The burden hours for § 314.80(i) are already approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.81(b)(1) requires that field alert reports be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 3331).

Section 314.81(b)(2) requires that annual reports be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 2252).

Section 314.81(b)(3)(i) requires that drug advertisements and promotional labeling be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 2253). Form FDA 2253 has been revised by FDA as follows: On line 8, “Please check one or both” has been revised to read “Please check only one.” In the instruction for line 8, the sentence “Consumer and professional pieces should be submitted separately” has been added.

Section 314.81(b)(3)(iii) sets forth reporting requirements for sponsors who withdraw an approved drug product from sale. (The burden hours for § 314.81(b)(3)(iii) are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0045 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.90 sets forth requirements for sponsors who request waivers from FDA for compliance with §§ 314.50 through 314.81. (The information collection burden estimate for NDA waiver requests is included in table 1 of this document under estimates for §§ 314.50, 314.60, 314.70 and 314.71.)

Section 314.93 sets forth requirements for submitting a suitability petition in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and 21 CFR 10.30. (The burden hours for § 314.93 are already approved by OMB under 0910-0183 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.94(a) and (d) requires that an ANDA contain the following information: Application form; table of contents; basis for ANDA submission; conditions of use; active ingredients; route of administration, dosage form, and strength; bioequivalence; labeling; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; samples; and patent certification.

Section 314.95 requires that any notice of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent to each patent owner and the NDA holder be sent by ANDA applicants.

Section 314.96 sets forth requirements for amendments to an unapproved ANDA.

Section 314.97 sets forth requirements for submitting supplements to an approved ANDA for changes that require FDA approval.

Section 314.98(a) sets forth postmarketing adverse drug experience reporting and recordkeeping requirements for ANDAs. (The burden hours for § 314.98(a) are already approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.98(c) requires other postmarketing reports for ANDAs: Field alert reports (Form FDA 3331), annual reports (Form FDA 2252), and advertisements and promotional labeling (Form FDA 2253). (The information collection burden estimate for field alert reports is included in table 1 of this document under § 314.81(b)(1); the estimate for annual reports is included under § 314.81(b)(2); the estimate for advertisements and promotional labeling is included under § 314.81(b)(3)(i).)

Section 314.99(a) requires that sponsors comply with certain reporting requirements for withdrawing an unapproved ANDA and for a change in ownership of an ANDA.

Section 314.99(b) sets forth requirements for sponsors who request waivers from FDA for compliance with §§ 314.92 through 314.99. (The information collection burden estimate for ANDA waiver requests is included in table 1 of this document under estimates for § 314.94(a) and (d) and §§ 314.96 and 314.97.)

Section 314.101(a) states that if FDA refuses to file an application, the applicant may request an informal conference with FDA and request that the application be filed over protest.

Section 314.107(c) requires notice to FDA by the first applicant to submit a substantially complete ANDA containing a certification that a relevant patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed of the date of first commercial marketing.

Section 314.107(e) requires that an applicant submit a copy of the entry of the order or judgment to FDA within 10 working days of a final judgment.

Section 314.107(f) requires that ANDA or section 505(b)(2) applicants notify FDA immediately of the filing of any legal action filed within 45 days of receipt of the notice of certification. A patent owner may also notify FDA of the filing of any legal action for patent infringement. If the patent owner or approved application holder who is an exclusive patent licensee waives its opportunity to file a legal action for patent infringement within the 45-day period, the patent owner or approved application holder must submit to FDA a waiver in the specified format.

Section 314.110(a)(3) and (a)(4) states that, after receipt of an FDA approvable letter, an applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.110(a)(3) and (a)(4) are included under parts 10 through 16 (21 CFR parts 10 through 16) hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.110(a)(5) states that, after receipt of an approvable letter, an applicant may notify FDA that it agrees to an extension of the review period so that it can determine whether to respond further.

Section 314.110(b) states that, after receipt of an approvable letter, an ANDA applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.110(b) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.120(a)(3) states that, after receipt of a not approvable letter, an applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.120(a)(3) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.120(a)(5) states that, after receipt of a not approvable letter, an applicant may notify FDA that it agrees to an extension of the review period so that it can determine whether to respond further.

Section 314.122(a) requires that an ANDA or a suitability petition that relies on a listed drug that has been voluntarily withdrawn from sale must be accompanied by a petition seeking a determination whether the drug was withdrawn for safety or effectiveness reasons. (The burden hours for § 314.122(a) are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.122(d) sets forth requirements for relisting petitions for unlisted discontinued products. (The burden hours for § 314.122(d) are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.126(c) sets forth requirements for a petition to waive criteria for adequate and well-controlled studies. (The burden hours for § 314.126(c) are already approved by OMB under 0910-0183 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.151(a) and (b) set forth requirements for the withdrawal of approval of an ANDA and the applicant's opportunity for a hearing and submission of comments. (The burden hours for § 314.151(a) and (b) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.151(c) sets forth the requirements for withdrawal of approval of an ANDA and the applicant's opportunity to submit written objections and participate in a limited oral hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.151(c) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.152(b) sets forth the requirements for suspension of an ANDA when the listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn for safety and effectiveness reasons, and the applicant's opportunity to present comments and participate in a limited oral hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.152(b) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and is not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.161(b) and (e) sets forth the requirements for submitting a petition to determine whether a listed drug was voluntarily withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons. (The burden hours for § 314.161(b) and (e) are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.200(c), (d), and (e) requires that applicants or others subject to a notice of opportunity for a hearing who wish to participate in a hearing file a written notice of participation and request for a hearing as well as the studies, data, and so forth, relied on. Other interested persons may also submit comments on the notice. This section also sets forth the content and format requirements for the applicants' submission in response to notice of opportunity for hearing. (The burden hours for §§ 314.200(c), (d), and (e) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.200(f) states that participants in a hearing may make a motion to the presiding officer for the inclusion of certain issues in the hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.200(f) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.200(g) states that a person who responds to a proposed order from FDA denying a request for a hearing provide sufficient data, information, and analysis to demonstrate that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact which justifies a hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.200(g) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and is not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.420 states that an applicant may submit to FDA a drug master file in support of an application, in accordance with certain content and format requirements.

Section 314.430 states that data and information in an application are disclosable under certain conditions, unless the applicant shows that extraordinary circumstances exist. (The burden hours for § 314.430 is included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and is not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.530(c) and (e) states that, if FDA withdraws approval of a drug approved under the accelerated approval procedures, the applicant has the opportunity to request a hearing and submit data and information. (The burden hours for § 314.530(c) and (e) are included under parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.530(f) requires that an applicant first submit a petition for stay of action before requesting an order from a court for a stay of action pending review. (The burden hours for § 314.530(f) are already approved by OMB under 0910-0194 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.610(b)(1) requires that applicants include a plan or approach to postmarketing study commitments in applications for approval of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible, and provide status reports of postmarketing study commitments. (The information collection burden estimate for § 314.610(b)(1) is included in table 1 of this document under the estimates for §§ 314.50(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (k) and 314.81(b)(2)).

Section 314.610(b)(3) requires that applicants propose labeling to be provided to patient recipients in applications for approval of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. (The information collection burden estimate for § 314.610(b)(3) is included in table 1 of this document under the estimates for § 314.50(e)).

Section 314.630 requires that applicants provide postmarketing safety reporting for applications for approval of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. (The burden hours for § 314.630 are already approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)

Section 314.640 requires that applicants provide promotional materials for applications for approval of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. (The information collection burden estimate for § 314.640 is included in table 1 of this document under the estimates for § 314.81(b)(3)(i)).

Respondents to this collection of information are all persons who submit an application or abbreviated application or an amendment or supplement to FDA under part 314 to obtain approval of a new drug, and any person who owns an approved application or abbreviated application.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Please note that in January 2008, the FDA Web site is expected to transition to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. After the transition date, electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only. When the exact date of the transition to FDMS is known, FDA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing that date.

In the Federal Register of October 15, 2007 (72 FR 58312), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Antibacterial Drug Products: Use of Noninferiority Studies to Support Approval.” The purpose of the guidance is to inform industry of FDA's current thinking regarding appropriate clinical study designs to evaluate antibacterial drugs, and to ask sponsors to amend ongoing or completed studies accordingly. The guidance is in response to a number of public discussions in recent years regarding the use of active-controlled studies designed to show noninferiority as a basis for approval of antibacterial drug products. Some of these discussions have focused on specific diseases such as acute bacterial sinusitis, acute bacterial otitis media, and acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. These public discussions have contributed to FDA's evolving understanding of the science of clinical trials and, in particular, the appropriate role of active-controlled studies designed to show noninferiority in the development of antibacterial drug products.

The draft guidance recommends that sponsors provide justification for the treatment effect size and the proposed noninferiority margin for all antibacterial development programs for which approval will rely on noninferiority studies. The initial comment period for this guidance closed on December 14, 2007.

On November 13, 2007, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America requested an extension beyond the December 14, 2007, deadline for the submission of comments. FDA recognizes the effect this guidance may have on the development of new antimicrobial products and that additional time may be needed for comment. Therefore, FDA has decided to reopen the comment period on the draft guidance until February 8, 2008, to allow the public more time to review and comment on its contents.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments to or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Please note that in January 2008, the FDA Web site is expected to transition to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. After the transition date, electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only. When the exact date of the transition to FDMS is known, FDA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing that date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

On March 31, 2006, FDA charged the Science Board to conduct a broad review of FDA scientific capacities, processes, and infrastructure which support FDA's core regulatory functions including the following: (1) Premarket review and consultation during the development of new FDA-regulated products; (2) oversight of marketed product quality; and (3) postmarket product safety surveillance and risk management. The following is the Commissioner of Food and Drugs' charge to the Science Board: “Review and report the broad categories of scientific and technologic capacities that FDA needs to fully support its core regulatory functions and decisionmaking throughout the product life-cycle, today and over the next decade.” Specifically:

(1) Are there any important gaps in current scientific capacities in which FDA should substantially increase efforts, to ensure that it can address current or expected scientific demands of FDA's regulatory mission? In what areas should the agency maintain or strengthen its current level of work and capacity?

(2) Are there areas of science in which the agency should consider refocusing its efforts in order to better address current or anticipated future scientific demands of FDA's regulatory mission?

(3) What opportunities exist to enhance the overall effectiveness of FDA's scientific and technologic capacity through coordination of scientific activities and priority setting across FDA components?

(4) What opportunities exist to better leverage FDA's scientific capacity through collaboration with other public agencies and private organizations? Are there other approaches to resource leveraging that FDA could pursue to better support needed scientific capacities?

The review was initiated to obtain advice regarding current science-based capacities and the degree to which they can prepare FDA for anticipated changes in science, technology and population health needs.

To respond to this request from the agency, the Science Board established a subcommittee on science and technology to perform the review. The subcommittee was supported by 30 outside experts, who were drawn from government, academia, and industry. Their efforts culminated in a subcommittee report of findings and preliminary recommendations. The subcommittee report was presented and discussed at the December 3, 2007, Science Board Advisory Committee meeting, at which time the Science Board decided to obtain comments from the public on the subcommittee report (an electronic copy of the subcommittee report is available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_00_index.html ).

In accordance with 21 CFR 14.35, FDA is soliciting public comment on the subcommittee report, on behalf of the Science Board. Comments received while the docket is open will be forwarded to the Science Board for their review. Comments will also be discussed at the next Science Board Advisory Committee meeting. A notice of the next Science Board Advisory Committee meeting will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

To help facilitate the public comment process upon the subcommittee report, FDA has established a public docket, on behalf of the Science Board. All comments submitted to the public docket are public information and may be posted to the FDA's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov for public viewing. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments received may be reviewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Please note that in January 2008, the FDA Web site is expected to transition to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. After the transition date, electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only. When the exact date of the transition to FDMS is known, FDA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing that date.

Dated: December 28, 2007. Randall W. Lutter, [FR Doc. E7-25607 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Comment Request

In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1129.

Comments are invited on: (a) The proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

In 2004 Congress enacted and the President signed into law Pub. L. 108- 357, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Section 712 of Pub. L. 108-357 authorized a demonstration program for the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease. The legislation was enacted to (1) create an optional medical assistance program for individuals with Sickle Cell Diseases for treatment and education, genetic counseling and other services to prevent mortality and decrease morbidity from Sickle Cell Disease, and (2) create a demonstration program, the SCDTDP, under HRSA. The SCDTDP provides grants to federally-qualified and nonprofit health care providers to establish geographically distributed regional networks that will work with comprehensive Sickle Cell Disease centers and community-based support organizations to provide coordinated, comprehensive, culturally competent, and family-centered care to families with Sickle Cell Disease. In fiscal year 2006, HRSA awarded four, 4-year grants to the Illinois Sickle Cell Association Network, Alabama Network for Sickle Cell Care, Access, Prevention, and Education, Carolina Partnership for Sickle Cell Treatment Continuum of Care, and the Cincinnati Sickle Cell Network.

Under the authorizing legislation, a National Coordinating Center (NCC) was established to (1) collect, coordinate, monitor, and distribute data, best practices and findings regarding the activities of the demonstration program; (2) identify a model protocol for eligible entities with respect to the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease; (3) identify educational materials regarding the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease; and (4) prepare a final report on the efficacy of the demonstration program based on evaluation findings.

As part of the evaluation, pre- and post-utilization and satisfaction data and quality of life assessments will be collected from the demonstration clients during various phases of their participation. These data will be collected through medical record abstractions and self-report using hard copy questionnaires and submitted to the NCC for processing and analysis. The total burden estimate per participant is shown below:

The total burden is 900 hours or 2.25 hours per participant. This would be the maximum level of burden since some of the demonstration networks will be able to abstract medical records for some of the data collected on the Utilization Questionnaire.

Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 10-33, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

Background

On September 24, 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register (72 FR 54277) a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to identify and assess the potential impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure, to include a primary pedestrian fence, supporting patrol roads, and other infrastructure in two distinct sections along the U.S./Mexico international border within CBP's San Diego Border Patrol Sector (Proposed Action). The EIS complies with NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program .

The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In supporting CBP's mission, the Border Patrol is charged with establishing and maintaining effective control of the U.S. border between ports of entry. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide Border Patrol agents with the tools necessary to strengthen their control of the U.S. border between ports of entry in the San Diego Sector. The Proposed Action also provides a safer work environment and enables Border Patrol agents to enhance response time.

The Proposed Action would consist of constructing a primary pedestrian fence, patrol roads, access roads, and other infrastructure in two sections. The first proposed section would be approximately 3.6 miles in length and would start at Puebla Tree and end at Boundary Monument 250. A newly constructed access and patrol road to support the fence section would be 5.2 miles in length. The first proposed section would be adjacent to and on the Otay Mountain Wilderness (OMW), and would follow the U.S./Mexico international border where topography allows, deviating from the border to follow a newly constructed access road where conditions warrant, such as descent to canyon bottoms. The OMW is on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The second proposed section would be approximately 0.8 miles in length and would connect with existing border fence west of Tecate, California. This fence section would be constructed along the border at the southern base of Tecate Peak. This proposed fence section would encroach on a mix of privately owned land parcels and public land administered by the BLM.

Under the No Action Alternative, a proposed tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations.

CBP will hold a public open house to provide information and invite comments on the Proposed Action and the Draft EIS. A public open house will be held on January 17, 2008, at the San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, CA 92101. The public open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Border Patrol agents and Draft EIS preparers will be available during the open house. Anyone wishing to submit comments may do so orally or in writing at the open house. Comments received at the open house will be recorded and transcribed into the public record for the open house. Commentors must provide their names and addresses. Spanish language translation will be provided. Those who plan to attend the public open house and will need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, should notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 3 business days in advance. Include contact information, as well as information about specific needs. Those unable to attend may submit comments as described under “Request for Comments” below.

CBP requests public participation in the EIS process. The public may participate by attending the public open house and submitting comments on the Draft EIS. CBP will consider all comments submitted during the public comment period, and subsequently will prepare the Final EIS. CBP will announce the availability of the Final EIS and once again give interested parties an opportunity to review the document. When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as for the San Diego Sector EIS. Please use only one of the following methods:

(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Public Open House to be held January 17, 2008 at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, CA.

(b) Electronically through the Web site at http://www.BorderFenceNEPA.com.

(c) By e-mail to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.

(d) By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e 2 M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031.

(e) By fax to: (757) 257-7643.

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 CWSA involves approximately 31,872 acres located in Townships 8 to 10 South, Ranges 22 and 23 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, about 30 miles south of Vernal, in Uintah County, Utah. Approximately 22,693 acres (71%) of surface and mineral estate are administered by the BLM; approximately 6,577 acres (21%) are owned by the Ute Tribe and/or its allottees and administered by the BIA; approximately 1,914 acres (6%) are administered by the State of Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA); and the remaining 688 acres (2%) are privately owned.

The CWSA encompasses an already developed oil and gas field. As of March 2004, the CWSA contained approximately 325 existing gas wells. Also, about 121 miles of roads and 115 miles of pipeline have been constructed within the region.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2004, which announced the beginning of the scoping period. Nine scoping letters were received from agencies and organizations during the scoping period. The scoping comments were taken into account during the drafting of the EIS. A summary of the scoping comments can be found in section 1.6 of the FEIS.

A NOA for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2006. During the public comment period, eight comment letters were received from various agencies and organizations. Comments received on the Draft EIS, and the responses to those comments, are found in Chapter 6 of the FEIS.

The FEIS analyzes the effects of a natural gas and oil development scenario within the CWSA that is conceptual in nature. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines will be determined through future site-specific assessments required for each facility. Any additional environmental analyses will be tiered to this FEIS.

The FEIS analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The following is a summary of the alternatives:

Alternative A—Proposed Action (BLM's preferred alternative): The proposed action includes up to 627 natural gas wells, about 99.5 miles of new roads and 104.5 miles of pipelines, and 5,000 hp of compression. EOG Resources Inc. proposes to drill 627 wells at the rate of 90 wells per year over a period of seven years, or until the resource base is fully developed. Of this total number, 473 wells would be drilled at new locations and 154 wells would be twin wells. In all, approximately 1,735 acres, or 5% of the total project area, would be disturbed by the proposal.

The Proposed Action incorporates standard operating procedures and applicant-committed best management practices currently employed on BLM-administered public lands in the Uintah Basin that mitigate impacts to the environment.

Alternative B—No Action: Oil and gas development on Federal lands proposed under Alternative A would not be implemented. However development would continue to occur under Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) previously approved by the BLM based upon other NEPA documents. Development would also continue on non-Federal lands. An additional 148 wells would be drilled on 20-acre and 40-acre spacing patterns (91 new wells and 57 twin wells).

Seven additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because of technical or economical reasons, because of their resource impact, or because they did not meet the purpose and need of BLM's proposed action.

Copies of the FEIS for the CWSA have been sent to Federal, State, and local government agencies, and to parties who commented during the public comment period.

The Greater Deadman Bench Region involves approximately 98,785 acres located in Townships 6-8 South, Ranges 21-25 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, about 20 miles south of Vernal, in Uintah County, Utah.

Approximately 83,860 acres (85%) of surface and mineral estate are administered by the BLM; approximately 11,440 acres (12%) are administered by the State of Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA); and the remaining 3,470 acres (4%) consist of various privately owned surface and mineral estate lands.

The Greater Deadman Bench Region encompasses an already developed oil and gas field. At the time of the initiation of the EIS process (in 2003), the Greater Deadman Bench Region contained approximately 278 existing oil or water-injection wells, and 300 gas wells. Also, about 57 miles of primary roads and 314 miles of secondary roads have been constructed within the region.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2003, which announced the beginning of the scoping period. Eleven scoping letters were received from agencies, organizations, and individuals during the scoping period. The scoping comments were taken into account during the drafting of the EIS. A summary of the scoping comments can be found in section 1.6 of the FEIS.

A NOA for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2006. During the public comment period seven comment letters were received from various agencies and organizations. Comments received on the Draft EIS, and the responses to those comments, are found in Chapter 6 of the FEIS.

The FEIS analyzes the effects of a natural gas and oil development scenario within the Greater Deadman Bench Region that is conceptual in nature. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific assessments required for each facility. Questar Exploration Production (QEP) proposes to drill 1,239 wells at the rate of 100-120 wells per year over a period of 10 years, or until the resource base is fully developed. Of this total number, 891 wells would be drilled at new locations and 348 wells would be drilled from existing well pads. Any additional environmental analyses will tier to this EIS.

The FEIS analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The following is a summary of the alternatives:

Alternative A—Proposed Action (BLM's preferred alternative): Up to 1,020 natural gas and 219 oil wells would be drilled. About 170 miles of new roads and 235 miles of pipelines, 31 miles of power lines, 22 new central tank facilities and 15 new gas compressor stations would be constructed to support this proposed development. In all, approximately 4,561 acres, or 5% of the total project area, would be disturbed by the proposal. The Proposed Action incorporates standard operating procedures and applicant-committed best management practices currently employed on BLM-administered public lands in the Uinta Basin that mitigate impacts to the environment.

Alternative B—No Action: Oil and gas development on Federal lands under Alternative A would not be implemented. However some level of development would continue to occur under Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) previously approved by the BLM based upon other NEPA documents. An additional 130 wells would be located on land managed by the State of Utah and private leases.

Eight additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. These alternatives included: No development, suspension of operations, exchange of leases, full-field directional drilling, conventional oil and gas plan development, Best Management Practices (BMP), phased development, and minimum setback distances. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis because of technical or economical reasons, because of their resource impact, or because they did not meet the purpose and need of BLM's proposed action.

Copies of the FEIS for the Greater Deadman Bench Region have been sent to Federal, State, and local government agencies, and to parties who commented during the public comment period.

The Rawlins Field Office planning area includes all of the public land and Federal mineral ownership in Laramie, Albany, Carbon, and eastern Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. The area includes approximately 3.5 million acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 4.5 million acres of Federal mineral lands under Federal, State, and private surface.

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was made available for public review for a 90-day period on December 12, 2004. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS described and analyzed 4 alternatives for the management of the public lands and resources, including the Federal mineral estate administered by the BLM Rawlins Field Office:

Alternative 1 (No Action): Continues to balance the use and development of resources under current management guidance;

Alternative 2: Provides development and use opportunities while minimizing adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources;

Alternative 3: Focuses on greater conservation of natural and cultural resources while providing for compatible development and use; and

Alternative 4: (Agency Preferred Alternative): Provides development opportunities while protecting sensitive resources.

The key issues addressed by the alternatives are: (1) Development of energy resources and minerals; (2) special management designations; (3) public access and transportation planning; (4) wildland-urban interface; (5) management of special status species; (6) water quality; (7) vegetation management; (8) recreation activities; and (9) cultural resources management.

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes recommendations regarding Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). While the Draft RMP/Draft EIS fully documents the ACECs considered, to ensure that BLM provided the public with the required 60-day comment and review period as required by 43 CFR 1610.7-2, the BLM published a notice of supplemental information describing the proposed ACECs and associated values and use limitations in the Federal Register June 5, 2007.

Comments received on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS from the public and internal BLM review comments were incorporated into the proposed plan. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text but did not significantly change proposed land use decisions.

After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, adjustments and clarifications have been made to Alternative 4, the Preferred Alternative. As modified, Alternative 4 is now presented as the Proposed Rawlins RMP in the Final EIS. The Proposed Rawlins RMP would provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for the use and management of resources in the planning area administered by the BLM and focus on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

As noted above, instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the PRMP/EIS may be found at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Electronic mail and facsimile protests will be considered only if the protesting party provides BLM with the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under those conditions, the BLM will consider the electronic or facsimile version as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of the BLM protest coordinator at (202) 452-5112, and e-mails to Brenda_Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov . All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:

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

This solicitation consists of eight parts and three attachments:

• Part I provides the funding description and background information.

• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.

• Part III describes eligible applicants and other grant specifications.

• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.

• Part V describes the criteria against which applications will be reviewed and evaluated, and explains the proposal review process.

• Part VI provides award administration information.

• Part VII contains DOL agency contact information.

• Part VIII lists additional resources of interest to applicants.

• Attachment A lists grantees receiving waivers.

• Attachment B lists Public Law 102-477 grantees receiving waivers.

• Attachment C lists grantees that did not receive a waiver and areas/counties open for competition and associated funding amounts.

Section 166 of WIA is to make funds available to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, and Native Hawaiian organizations to support employment and training activities in order to:

(1) Develop more fully the academic, occupational, and literacy skills of Indian, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian individuals;

(2) Make Indian, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian individuals more competitive in the workforce;

(3) Promote the economic and social development of Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities in accordance with the goals and values of such communities; and

(4) Help Indian, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian individuals achieve personal and economic self-sufficiency.

Requirements for WIA § 166 programs are set forth in WIA § 166 (29 U.S.C. 2911) and its regulations, found at 20 CFR part 668, published at 65 FR 49294, 49435 August 11, 2000.

The Department's Office of ETA has awarded employment and training grants to Indian tribes, urban Indian centers, and other nonprofit organizations serving Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians for over 30 years. These grants have been authorized under various forms of legislation such as the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) enacted in 1982, and its predecessor, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) enacted in 1973. While WIA maintains most of the core program values that existed in previous laws, it also establishes key reforms that are applicable to Native American programs.

One of the key reforms under WIA is the emphasis on the coordination of Federally funded job training programs. The mechanism used to coordinate these various job training programs is the One-Stop delivery system. Under WIA, the Native American Section 166 program is a required partner in the One-Stop delivery system. As such, grantees must execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the local workforce investment board that identifies the role of the INA grantee in the One-Stop center. It is important that Section 166 grantees coordinate with their local One-Stop service provider(s).

Applicants to this SGA should also be aware of ETA's move towards results-oriented employment and training programs. In order to better measure performance, ETA has established common measures for all ETA programs. Listed below are the adult performance outcomes that Section 166 grants are measured by:

• Entered Employment.

• Employment Retention.

• Average Earnings.

Applicants which receive supplemental youth funds will be measured by the following criteria:

• Number of Youth Placed in Unsubsidized Employment.

• Number of Youth Placed in Post Secondary Education.

• Number of Youth Attained a High School Diploma or Equivalent.

• Number of Youth Returned to Secondary School Full-Time.

Additional information on performance measures can be found in ETA's Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 17-05 (February 17, 2006), which can be found at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf.

As indicated in the Summary above, the Secretary has the authority to grant waivers from competition to grantees that have performed satisfactorily under their current grant. Incumbent grantees that have performed satisfactorily, both programmatically and administratively, under the last two grant cycles will receive a waiver from competition for the PY 2008-2009 designation period funded under this notice.

However, if the Department has found that the grantee serving a geographic area has failed to perform satisfactorily, that geographic area will be placed in competition, UNLESS the grantee is serving a geographic area over which it has legal jurisdiction.

The Department will consider the following factors when determining waivers from competition:

(a) Program performance measures.

(b) The responsibility review criteria contained in 20 CFR 667.170.

(c) The factors related to ability to administer funds in 20 CFR 668.220 and 668.230.

The process for determining waivers from competition is independent of the responsibility review and ability to administer funds processes and a deficiency need not rise to the level necessary to support a finding of “not responsible” or “not able to administer” in order to be considered relevant to the waiver determination. Every applicant for assistance, including those receiving priority and those receiving waivers of competition, must undergo a separate determination of its responsibility under 20 CFR 667.170 and its ability to administer funds under 20 CFR 668.220 and 668.230. Grantees that are determined to be “not responsible” as determined by the responsibility review process will not be selected as potential grantees irrespective of the designation processes included in this SGA.

For incumbent organizations that failed to qualify for a waiver of competition, the Grant Officer reserves the right to examine the applicant's responsibility pursuant to 20 CFR 667.170 as part of the initial review of grant applications in order to carry out a more efficient selection process. Incumbent organizations that are found nonresponsible or unable to administer funds, including those receiving priority, will not qualify for designation.

The determination regarding whether to deny a waiver required some adjustment with respect to Federally recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native entities serving geographic areas over which they have legal jurisdiction and a priority for designation under 20 CFR 668.210(a). In these situations, the Department determined that it will provide a waiver to such grantees since the Section 166 regulations provide a priority for designation for Federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities (or consortia that include such a tribe or Alaska Native entity) regarding geographic areas and/or populations over which they have legal jurisdiction. The Waiver is limited to those geographic areas over which the tribal grantee has legal jurisdiction as defined by 20 CFR 668.210(a). Those geographic areas which the grantee serves but lacks legal jurisdiction are subject to competition.

The Department will address the poor performance of Federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities through separate administrative processes. Such processes may include conditional designation or corrective action plans that require tribes and Alaska Native entities to improve performance. Failure to improve performance may result in a tribal and Alaska Native entity losing its designation as a WIA grantee.

(a) Attachment A provides a list of current grantees receiving competition waivers (including those tribes and Alaska Native entities that will receive conditional designations).

(b) Attachment B is a list of Public Law 102-477 grantees receiving waivers.

(c) Attachment C lists grantees that did not receive a waiver and areas/counties open for competition and associated funding amounts. If a federally recognized tribe did not receive a waiver from competition, only the service area in which the tribe does not have legal jurisdiction is listed in Attachment C.

Being designated as a Section 166 service provider, either under a waiver or through competition will not automatically result in an immediate award of grant funds. Entities that successfully complete the designation process, including winning any competition(s) for service area(s) that may occur as defined in this SGA, must prepare a two-year Comprehensive Services Program (CSP) Plan that must be approved by DOL. Instructions for preparation of the CSP Plan will be issued to all designated service providers under separate guidance.

After a section 166 designee's CSP Plan is approved by the Department, a grant agreement (“Notice of Obligation” or NOO) must be executed in accordance with 20 CFR 668.292. Each NOO will reflect the amount of Section 166 funds awarded as determined in accordance with 20 CFR 668.296 and 668.440.

Type of assistance instrument: Funds will be awarded under this solicitation through two-year grants. Exact award amounts will be determined by the Department after designation of service areas and service providers, and once funding appropriations for the grant periods have been made by Congress.

The section 166 program is a “formula funded” program that receives an annual appropriation of approximately $54,000,000. For PY 2007, this amount was distributed throughout the U.S. to 180 grantees. The amounts awarded under the CSP (Adult) program in PY 2007 ranged from $15,641 to $5,970,187. The median grant award amount for PY 2007 was $160,426. PY 2007 CSP (adult) award amounts for all section 166 grantees can be found at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL24-06_Att1.pdf.

Adult funding: The amount of funding a grantee will receive for adult services is based on a formula specified at 20 CFR 668.296(b). The CSP (Adult) Funding Formula is as follows:

• One-quarter of the funds will be allocated based on the percentage of unemployed Native Americans living in the grantee's designated INA service area (as defined below) compared to the total number of unemployed Native Americans living in the U.S.

• Three-quarters of the funds will be allocated based on the percentage of Native Americans living in poverty in the grantee's designated INA service area compared to the total number of Native Americans living in poverty in the U.S.

A grantee's designated INA service area is the area identified by the DOL Grant Officer in the grant award in which the grant applicant will operate an employment and training program (usually a county or reservation area). Grant applicants must specify the geographic area(s) they wish to serve in their grant application. ETA uses counties and tribal reservations, Alaska Native villages, and Alaska Native regional corporations to identify areas of service. ETA used data from the 2000 Census to determine the number of Native Americans in poverty and unemployed for each service area. Attachment C identifies the service areas in competition for PY 2008-2009, along with the number of Native Americans in each geographic area who are unemployed, in poverty, or in the youth age bracket and the estimated funding associated with each service area.

Youth funding: Grant applicants serving reservation areas and grantees serving any area in the State of Oklahoma also receive Supplemental Youth Services (SYS) program funds. Youth funds are appropriated annually as stated in WIA at § 127(b)(1)(C)(i). Annual appropriations for the SYS program have been between $14,000,000 and $15,000,000, and have been awarded to approximately 136 Native American grantees. The amounts awarded under the SYS program in 2007 ranged from $1,916 to $3,109,199. The median grant award amount for PY 2007 was $36,249. Youth award amounts for all Section 166 grantees can be found at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL24-06_Att2.pdf.

The amount of youth funding a grantee will receive is based on a formula specified at 20 CFR 668.440. The SYS Funding Formula is as follows: SYS funding will be allocated to grantees serving reservations (or areas in the State of Oklahoma) based on the percentage of Native American Youth between the ages of 14 and 21 living in poverty in the grantee's designated INA service area compared to the number of Native American youth between the ages of 14 and 21 living in poverty on all reservation areas and the State of Oklahoma.

Award amounts available for areas in competition: Estimated funds to be awarded for those areas in competition are included in Attachment C.

To be eligible for an award of funds under WIA § 166 and this solicitation, an entity must meet all eligibility requirements of WIA § 166 and 20 CFR 668.200, as well as the application and designation requirements found at 20 CFR part 668, subpart B. The Federal regulations are available at: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/pdf/wiafinalregsall.pdf. Potential applicants are expected to thoroughly review and comply with the statute and regulations.

Organizations that are eligible to apply for WIA § 166 funds under this solicitation are:

• Federally recognized Indian Tribes.

• Tribal organizations as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b.

• Alaskan Native-controlled organizations representing regional or village areas, as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

• Native Hawaiian-controlled entities.

• Native American-controlled organizations serving Indians, including community and faith-based organizations (see definition of Native American-controlled organizations described below).

• State-recognized tribal organizations serving individuals who were eligible to participate under JTPA § 401, as of August 6, 1998.

• Consortia of eligible entities which individually meet the legal requirements for a consortium (see definition of a consortium described below). Additionally, to be eligible, entities must have a legal status as a government, an agency of a government, a private nonprofit corporation (e.g., incorporated under IRS § 501(c)(3), or a consortium as defined below. Applicants seeking to provide services in a geographic service area for the first time must satisfy the funding threshold identified below.

Definition of Native American-Controlled Organization: A Native American-controlled organization is defined as any organization for which more than 50 percent of the governing board members are Indians or Native Americans. Such an organization can be a tribal government, Native Alaska entity, Native Hawaiian entity, consortium, or public or private nonprofit agency. For the purpose of this award application, the governing board must have decision-making authority for the WIA § 166 program.

Eligible consortium: Each member of a consortium must individually meet the requirement of an eligible applicant, as defined in 20 CFR 668.200 (c), (that is, be a Federally recognized tribe, or tribal organization, or Alaska Native-controlled organization, etc.) and at least one of the consortia members must have a legal status as a government, an agency of a government or a private nonprofit corporation. Additionally, the consortium must meet the following conditions:

• Have members in close proximity to one another but not necessarily in the same State;

• Have an administrative unit legally authorized to run the program and to commit the other members to contracts, grants, and other legally binding agreements; and

• Be jointly and individually responsible for the actions and obligations of the consortium, including debts.

Funding Thresholds: To be eligible for funding, a new (non-incumbent) entity must request one or more geographic service areas in competition that contain an eligible population of sufficient size to result in a funding level of at least $100,000 under the combined adult and youth funding formulas. See § 668.200(a)(3). Current section 166 grantees that do not meet the $100,000 threshold are exempt from this requirement. Federally-recognized tribes currently receiving, or applying for WIA § 166 funds under Public Law 102-477 only need to meet a $20,000 threshold, as long as the combined funding under Public Law 102-477 is at least $100,000. Attachment C provides funding estimates for the geographic areas in competition.

The Section 166 program does not require grantees to share costs or provide matching funds.

In accordance with 29 CFR Part 98, entities that are debarred or suspended shall be excluded from Federal financial assistance and are ineligible to receive a section 166 grant.

Additionally, the applicant must have the ability to administer section 166 funds. The ability to administer section 166 funds is determined in accordance with 20 CFR 668.220 and 668.230.

Limitations on those served under a WIA § 166 grant are identified in Part IV (E) of this SGA, “Funding Restrictions.”

Applicants should be aware that there are specific program regulations and OMB circulars that grantees must adhere to upon receiving a section 166 grant. See Part IV (B) of this SGA below.

This SGA contains all of the information needed to apply for grant funding.

Information that must be submitted under this SGA will depend on the applicant's status with DOL/ETA. For the purposes of this SGA, grant applicants are divided into four categories, each of which is addressed separately below: (1) Current grantees receiving a waiver from competition for their service area (see listing in Attachment A); (2) current grantees operating a WIA § 166 grant under Public Law 102-477 (see listing in Attachment B); (3) current grantees not receiving waivers from competition (see listing in Attachment C); and (4) new applicants for areas in competition.

Current grantees receiving a waiver of competition, as listed in Attachment A of this SGA, only need to submit the following documents:

• A brief cover letter informing ETA of the organization's interest in applying for WIA § 166 funds, signed by an authorized signatory official.

• A Standard Form (SF) 424 (Version 02) which can be obtained at http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/WhatsNew.cfm (See information regarding the completion of the SF-424 below.)

If a current grantee with a competition waiver for an existing service area wishes to apply for additional geographic service areas, the additional service area(s) must be stated in item #14 of the SF-424 and the procedures in Section V of this SGA must be followed to apply for grant funding for the additional area(s). A current grantee that has received a waiver from competition does not jeopardize its existing service area by applying for additional service areas nor does it receive any preference for the additional area.

Public Law 102-477 authorizes WIA § 166 funds to be awarded to Federally-recognized tribes under a “consolidation” plan administered through the U.S. DOI. Public Law 102-477 allows Federally-recognized tribes to consolidate formula-funded employment and training related funds under a single, consolidated plan. Grantees operating a WIA § 166 grant under Public Law 102-477, as listed in Attachment B of this SGA, only need to submit the following documents:

• A brief cover letter informing ETA of the organization's interest in applying for WIA § 166 funds, signed by an authorized signatory official.

• A Standard Form (SF) 424 (Version 02) which can be obtained at http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/WhatsNew.cfm (See information regarding the completion of the SF-424 below).

These documents indicate their intent to continue receiving section 166 funds. Tribes wishing to apply for WIA § 166 funds under Public Law 102-477 should not apply under this solicitation. Instead, tribes must submit a 477 plan to the U.S. DOI.

New tribal applicants should be aware that in order for ETA to timely obligate funds under Public Law 102-477, a tribe's 477 plan must be received by the DOI no later than April 1, 2008, and approved no later than June 30, 2008. For further information on applying for WIA § 166 funds under Public Law 102-477, please contact Dawn Anderson at (202) 693-3745

Current grantees not receiving a waiver from competition, as listed in Attachment C of this SGA, only need to submit the following documents to initially express interest in continuing to serve the geographic service area placed in competition:

• A brief cover letter informing ETA of the organization's interest in applying for WIA § 166 funds, signed by an authorized signatory official.

• A Standard Form (SF) 424 (Version 02) which can be obtained at: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/WhatsNew.cfm (See information regarding the completion of the SF 424 below.)

While these are the only documents initially required, grantees not receiving a waiver should be aware that other entities may apply for their geographic service area(s). In cases where a new applicant (or applicants) applies for a current grantee's service area, the Grant Officer will notify the applicant—no later than 15 days after the SGA deadline date—that there is competition for the grantee's service area. Upon such notification, the applicant will be given 30 days from the date of the notification to submit a competitive grant proposal that responds to the evaluation criteria described in Part V(A) and that complies with requirements for new applicants under Part IV(B)(3) below (except that current grantees need not provide identification or proof of legal status, unless it has changed since the entity's current grant award). Current grantees not receiving a waiver may want to prepare a competitive grant proposal in preparation of a possible notice of competition as some portions of the proposal (such as letters of support) may take longer than the 30 days to prepare.

If there is no competition for a service area currently served by a grantee that did not receive a waiver, the Grant Officer, in consultation with INAP and consistent with 20 CFR 668.210, 668.250, and 668.280, will make a decision to continue funding to the current grantee, or to designate the service area to another WIA § 166 grantee that is willing to serve the area, or to transfer funding into the formula to be distributed among all WIA § 166 grantees.

(4). New applicants for areas in competition. New applicants must submit a complete grant proposal that addresses each of the evaluation criteria indicated in Part V(A) of this SGA. The proposal may not exceed twenty (20) double-spaced, single-sided, 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages with 12 point text font and one inch margins. In addition, attachments may be included but may not exceed 10 pages. The applicant may provide resumes, a list of staff positions to be funded by the grant, letters of support, statistical information, and other related material. The proposal must include within the 20-page limit:

• A brief cover letter informing ETA of the organization's interest in applying for WIA § 166 funds, signed by an authorized signatory official.

• A Standard Form (SF) 424 (Version 02) which can be obtained at: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/WhatsNew.cfm (see information regarding the completion of the SF-424 below).

• Identification of the applicant's legal status, including articles of incorporation for non-profit organizations or consortium agreement (if applicable).

• A specific description of the geographic area (i.e., county or reservation) being applied for. Only areas placed in competition and identified in Attachment C of this SGA can be applied for. New applicants should identify the area(s) they wish to serve in item #14 of the SF-424. Applicants may include service areas in an attachment to the SF-424 if additional space is needed.

Completing the Standard Form (SF) 424 (Version 02):

The SF-424 is available for downloading at: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/WhatsNew.cfm. The SF-424 must clearly identify the applicant and be signed by an individual with authority to enter into a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the SF-424 on behalf of the applicant shall be considered the representative of the applicant.

While the SF-424 requires general information about an applicant, applicants may not be familiar with some required items, or the information may not be readily available. Explanations of these items are provided below:

Item #8(c)—Organization DUNS: All applicants for Federal funds are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number access this Web site: http://www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1-866-705-5711. Many organizations already have a DUNS number. Applicants should verify that their organization does not already have a DUNS number before obtaining a new number.

• Item #11 —Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA): The CFDA number for the WIA § 166 program is 17.265. This number must be provided in item #11.

• Item #14 —Areas Affected by Project: Applicants must include the specific geographic areas they wish to serve (i.e., counties, reservations, etc.). Current grantees that wish to serve their existing service area and are not applying for additional service areas only need to indicate “Existing Service Area” in this section. Current grantees and new applicants requesting service areas that are open to competition as indicated in Attachment C of this SGA must include the State, County, and Reservation service area in line item 14. Applicants may include service areas in an attachment to the SF-424 if additional space is needed.

• Item #17 —Proposed Project Start Date and Ending Date: The WIA § 166 program is funded for a two-year period and is based on a PY period of July 1 through June 30. The proposed start date under this solicitation is July 1, 2008, and the proposed end date is June 30, 2009.

• Item #18 —Estimated Funding: The WIA § 166 program is a formula funded program and funding is based on population characteristics, geographic service area, and annual congressional appropriations. Since WIA § 166 funding awards are calculated by the DOL/ETA, it is not necessary for applicants to complete Item #18. However, current grantees can view their estimated funding which has been calculated by the DOL/ETA through 2010, at this Web site: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/cfml/CensusData.cfm. Please note that the funding amounts located at the Web sites above are estimates based on the Fiscal Year 2004, congressional appropriation. Funding estimates for those areas in competition are included in Attachment C.

• Item #19 —Is application Subject to Review by State Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12372 process? The WIA § 166 program is not subject to E.O. 12372.

All applications must be submitted with an original signed application, SF-424 (all new applicants must also submit a SF-424A, Budget Form) and one (1) “copy-ready” version. Do not bind, staple, or insert protruding tabs.

The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is by 5 p.m. e.t, 30 days after the date of publication, February 4, 2008. Applications must be received at the address below no later than 5 p.m. e.t. Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (fax) will not be accepted. Applications that do not meet the conditions set forth in this notice will not be considered. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted.

Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: James Stockton, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA-PY-05-05, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand delivered proposals will be received at the above address. All overnight mail will be considered to be hand-delivered and must be received at the designated place by the specified closing date and time. Proposals submitted on diskette or CD is not encouraged as decontamination procedures may cause damage.

Late Applications: Any application received after the exact date and time specified for receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received before awards are made and it

(1) Was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application received after the deadline, but having a U.S. postmark showing an early submittal will not be considered late if received before awards are made), or

(2) Was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail to the addressee not later than 5 p.m. (e.t.) at the place of mailing one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications. “Post marked” means a printed, stamped, or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants should request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the package. Failure to adhere to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of non-responsiveness.

Important: Organizations seeking WIA § 166 funding for this period must comply with the provisions of this SGA. Late applications from current grantees or new applicants will not be considered for those geographic service areas that are in competition (as listed in Attachment C).

This funding opportunity is not subject to E.O. 12372 “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Allowable costs: Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles, e.g., for tribes, OMB Circular A-87, for nonprofit organizations, OMB Circular A-122. See 20 CFR 668.810 and 668.840 (incorporating WIA cost rules at 20 CFR 667.200 to 667.220). Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles or other conditions contained in the grant. The WIA § 166 program limits administrative costs to 15 percent but may be negotiated up to 20 percent upon approval from the grantor agency. There are no specific limits on indirect costs; however, since most indirect costs are considered administrative costs, the amount of indirect cost collected, regardless of the approved rate, may be limited by the overall administrative cost limit. WIA funds must not be spent on construction or purchase of facilities or buildings except in specific circumstances specified at § 667.260.

Limitation on the type of individuals served: The regulations at 20 CFR 668.300(a) limit eligibility for WIA § 166 program services to Indians as determined by a policy of the Native American grantee. The grantee's definition must at least include anyone who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe, or an Alaska Natives, or a Native Hawaiian. Those receiving services must also, under § 668.300(b), be either low income, unemployed, underemployed as defined in 20 CFR 668.150, a recipient of a bona fide layoff notice which has taken effect in the last six months or will take effect in the following six month period, or employed persons in need of employment and training services to achieve self-sufficiency. Grantees must ensure that all eligible population members have equitable access to employment and training services. See 20 CFR 668.650(a). Priority of services must be given to veterans and spouses of certain veterans in accordance with the provisions of the “Jobs for Veterans Act,” Public Law 107-288. Since all individuals served by the section 166 program must be an Indian, Native American, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian, so must the veterans receiving priority under the “Jobs for Veterans Act” be Indian, Native American, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian.

The factors listed below will be considered in evaluating the applicants' approach to providing services and their ability to produce the best outcomes for covered individuals residing in the service area.

Overall Review Process: The Grant Officer will conduct an initial review of grant applications for compliance with the statute, regulations, and this SGA. The initial review will consider, among other things, timeliness and completeness of submission, applicant eligibility, eligibility of the requested service area, population size, and funding thresholds as described in Part III (A) of this SGA. The review will also consider the applicant's ability to administer funds as specified at 20 CFR 668.220 and 668.230. Applications that do not satisfy these conditions will not be considered.

For incumbent organizations that failed to qualify for a waiver of competition, the Grant Officer reserves the right to examine the applicant's responsibility pursuant to 20 CFR 667.170, as part of the initial review of grant applications in order to carry out a more efficient selection process. Incumbent organizations that are found nonresponsible or unable to administer funds, will not qualify for designation.

Designation Priority: If two or more applicants satisfy the initial review described above, the Grant Officer will determine whether designation priority exists. In nonreservation areas placed in competition, consistent with 20 CFR 668.210(c), priority for designation will be given to entities with a Native American-controlled governing body and which are representative of the Native American communities that they are applying to serve.

Competitive Selection Procedures: Where two or more applicants satisfy the initial review described above and where equal or no priority for designation exists, then a competitive selection will be made for geographic areas identified in Attachment C using the procedures in this section. When competitive selection is necessary, INAP will notify each applicant of the competing NOI no later than 15 days after the application deadline date. Upon notification of competition, current grantees will be given 30 days from the date of notification to submit a complete proposal, as specified in Part IV (B)(3).

Where a competitive evaluation is required, the Grant Officer will use a formal panel review process to score proposals and any supporting attachments against the evaluation criteria listed in Part V(A). The review panel will include individuals with knowledge of or expertise in programs dealing with Indians and Native Americans. The purpose of the panel is to review and evaluate an organization's potential, based on its application, to provide services to a specific Native American community, and submit recommendations to the Grant Officer.

It is the Department's policy that no information affecting the panel review process will be solicited or accepted after the deadlines for receipt of applications set forth in this SGA. All submitted information must be in writing. This policy does not preclude the Grant Officer from requesting, or considering, additional information independent of the panel review process. During the review, the panel will not give weight to undocumented assertions. Any information must be supported by adequate and verifiable documentation, e.g., supporting references must contain the name of the contact person, an address, and telephone number. Panel ratings and recommendations are advisory to the Grant Officer.

Determination of Designation-Scoring: The Grant Officer will make the final determination of section 166 designees and of the geographic service area for which each designation is made. The Grant Officer will select the entity that demonstrates the ability to produce the best outcomes for its customers, based on all available evidence and in consideration of any designation priorities as described in above. In addition to considering the review panel's rating in those instances in which a panel is convened, the Grant Officer may consider any other available information regarding the applicants' financial and administrative capability, operational capability, and responsibility in order to make funding determinations that are advantageous to the government.

The Grant Officer need not designate an entity for every geographic area. See 20 CFR 668.294. If there are service areas in competition for which no entity submitted a complete application or for which no entity achieved a score of at least 70, the Grant Officer may either designate no service provider or may designate an entity based on demonstrated capability to provide the best services to the client population. The Department reserves the rights to select applicants with scores lower than 70 or lower than competing applications if such selection would, in the Department's judgment, result in the most effective and appropriate combination of services to the client population, funding, and costs.

An applicant that does not receive WIA § 166 funding, in whole or in part, as a result of this process, will be afforded the opportunity to appeal the Grant Officer's decision as provided at 20 CFR 668.270.

Designation decisions will be made by March 1, 2008.

The Grant Officer, Mr. James Stockton, will notify applicants of the results of their application as follows:

Designation Award Letter: The designation award letter signed by the Grant Officer will serve as official notice that the applicant has been awarded WIA § 166 funding. The designation award letter will include the geographic service area for which the designation is made.

Nondesignation Award Letter: Any organization not receiving a designated award, in whole or in part, for a requested geographic service area that is in competition (as identified in Attachment C) will be notified formally of the nonaward designation.

Notification by a person or entity, other than the Grant Officer that an applicant has been awarded WIA § 166 funds is not valid.

Applicants that are awarded WIA § 166 funds and become a Grantee of ETA must comply with the provisions of WIA and its regulations. Particular attention should be given to 20 CFR Part 668, which focuses specifically on programs for Indians and Native Americans under WIA. In addition, all grants will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, as applicable to the particular grantee:

• 20 CFR part 667—Administrative provisions under Title I of WIA.

• 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal Treatment in Department of Labor Programs for Religious Organizations; Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.

• 29 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36—Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training; Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of Labor; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of Labor; and Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance.

• 29 CFR part 37—Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

• 29 CFR part 93—Lobbying.

• 29 CFR part 95—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and with Commercial Organizations.

• 29 CFR part 96—Federal Standards for Audit of Federally Funded Grants, Contracts, and Agreements.

• 29 CFR part 97 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

• 29 CFR part 98—Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-Procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).

• 29 CFR part 99—Audit of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

In accordance with WIA § 195(6) and 20 CFR 668.630(f), programs funded under this SGA may not involve political activities. Additionally, in accordance with section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65 (2 U.S.C. 1611), nonprofit entities incorporated under § 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying activities are not eligible to receive Federal funds and grants. Further, this program is subject to the provisions of the “Jobs for Veterans Act,” Public Law 107-288, which provides priority of service to veterans and spouses of certain veterans for the receipt of employment, training, and placement services in any job training program directly funded, in whole or in part, by DOL. Please note that, to obtain priority of service, a veteran must meet the program's eligibility requirements. ETA Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 5-03 (September 16, 2003) provides guidance on the scope of the veterans priority statute and its effect on current employment training programs.

Applicants that are awarded WIA § 166 funds and become grantees of ETA will be required to submit reports on financial expenditures, program participation, and participant outcomes on no more than a quarterly basis and in accordance with ETA-specified formats, deadlines, and other requirements. Grantee performance will be evaluated on an annual basis.

Questions regarding this SGA can be directed to: Serena Boyd, Grants Management Specialist, e-mail: boyd.serena@dol.gov ; (202) 693-3338; Fax: (202) 693-2879.

Potential applicants may obtain further information on the WIA § 166 program for employment and training of Native Americans through the Web site for DOL's Indian and Native American Programs: http://www.doleta.gov/dinap/ . Any information submitted in response to this SGA will be subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act, as appropriate. The Department is not obligated to make any awards as a result of this SGA, and only the Grant Officer can bind the Department to the provision of funds under WIA § 166. Unless specifically provided in the grant agreement, the Department's acceptance of a proposal and/or award of Federal funds does not waive any grant requirements and/or procedures.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, the OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Please do not return your completed application to the OMB. Send it to the sponsoring agency as specified in this solicitation.

This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be confidential.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice of the expansion of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc., (MET) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). MET's expansion covers the use of additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for MET may be found in the following informational Web page: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/met.html.

OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.

The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

MET submitted an application, dated April 25, 2006 (see Exhibit 41-1, as cited in the preliminary notice), to expand its recognition to include 22 additional test standards. One standard, however, is already included in MET's scope. The NRTL Program staff determined that the remaining 21 standards are “appropriate test standards” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). In connection with this request, OSHA did not perform an on-site review of MET's NRTL testing facilities. However, NRTL Program assessment staff reviewed information pertinent to the request and recommended that MET's recognition be expanded to include the additional test standards listed below (see Exhibit 41-2, as cited in the preliminary notice). Therefore, OSHA is approving these 21 test standards for the expansion.

The preliminary notice announcing the expansion application was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 37056). Comments were requested by July 23, 2007, but no comments were received in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's expansion application.

The most recent application processed by OSHA specifically related to MET's recognition granted an expansion, and the final notice for this expansion was published on February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8797).

You may obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the MET application by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028 (formerly NRTL1-88) contains all materials in the record concerning MET's recognition.

The current address of the MET facility (site) already recognized by OSHA is: MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21230.

NRTL Program staff has examined the application, the assessor's recommendation, and other pertinent information. Based upon this examination and the assessor's recommendation, OSHA finds that MET has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of MET, subject to this limitation and these conditions.

OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards, each of which OSHA has determined is an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c):

The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of the preliminary notice.

OSHA's recognition of MET, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials ( i.e. , products) for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s).

A test standard listed above may be approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

MET must also abide by the following conditions of the recognition, in addition to those already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:

OSHA must be allowed access to MET's facilities and records for purposes of ascertaining continuing compliance with the terms of its recognition and to investigate as OSHA deems necessary;

If MET has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard developing organization of this fact and provide that organization with appropriate relevant information upon which its concerns are based;

MET must not engage in or permit others to engage in any misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As part of this condition, MET agrees that it will allow no representation that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific equipment or material to which this recognition is tied, or that its recognition is limited to certain products;

MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in its operations as an NRTL, including details;

MET will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

MET will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all areas where it has been recognized.