Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal Officer, at 208-392-6681 or e-mail dgochnour@fs.fed.us.

The final RAC meeting on September 10 will be held to make recommendations for project proposals requested at the August 13 meeting.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are proposed.

These facilities are in close proximity to the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational segments of the Illinois River. This area offers significant recreational viewing opportunities, fishing experiences, and is rich in historical and cultural importance. A market analysis indicates that the $4/per day single vehicle fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

On July 17, 2007, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register (72 FR 39052) that invited the public to submit comments regarding the Commerce Control List (CCL) in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

The notice indicated that, in addition to seeking recommendations from its Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) as a part of a systematic review of the CCL, BIS believed that it would also be beneficial to allow interested members of the public to submit comments regarding the CCL.

Specifically, in addition to seeking recommendations from its TACs, BIS invited the interested public to submit comments regarding:

(1) The overall structure of the CCL, including suggestions for how the structure of the CCL may be changed to better advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic interests;

(2) Types of items that should be listed on the CCL and the appropriate levels of controls to be placed on those items, taking into account technology levels, markets, and foreign availability;

(3) Any updates to the CCL item descriptions that would enable the descriptions to better reflect the intent of the multinational controls and to eliminate any overly broad descriptions that inadvertently capture non-critical items that are not controlled by other countries; and

(4) Coordination and harmonization of controls on items covered by the multilateral regimes, such as the Wassenaar Arrangement.

The notice of inquiry indicated that the deadline for public comments closes on September 17, 2007. BIS is now extending the comment period until November 1, 2007, to allow the public additional time to comment on the notice of inquiry.

The names and position titles of the members of the NOAA PRB are set forth below (all are NOAA officials except Tyra D. Smith, Director, Human Resources, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; William J. Fleming, Deputy Director for Human Resources Management, Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Commerce:

The Commission is undertaking a review of issues related to the oversight of trading on regulated futures exchanges and Exempt Commercial Markets (ECMs). In furtherance of that review, the Commission hereby announces that it will hold a public hearing to commence on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, at 9 a.m., at the Commission's headquarters in Washington, DC.

The Commission has previously announced that the hearing will generally focus on a number of issues, including:

• The tiered regulatory approach of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) and whether this risk-based model is beneficial;

• The similarities and differences between ECMs and regulated exchanges;

• The associated regulatory risks of each market category;

• The types of regulatory or legislative changes that might be appropriate to address such identified risks; and

• The impact that regulatory or legislative changes might have on the U.S. futures industry and the global competitiveness of the U.S. financial industry in general. (CFTC Release No. 5368-07, August 2, 2007.)

A transcript of the hearing will be made and entered into the Commission's public comment files, which will remain open for the receipt of written comments until September 24, 2007.

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

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 29, 2007, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 29, 2007, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19925), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0286, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742.

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

Title: EPA's In-Use Vehicle and Engine Testing Programs.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0222.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0086.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA has ongoing programs to evaluate the emission performance of in-use light-duty (passenger car and light truck) motor vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and nonroad vehicles and engines. These are referred to collectively as EPA's in-use vehicle testing programs. They operate in conjunction with testing of prototype vehicles prior to use (manufacturer and EPA confirmatory testing for certification) and the mandatory manufacturer's in-use testing program (IUVP) for light-duty vehicles. They derive from the Clean Air Act's charge that EPA insure that motor vehicles comply with emissions requirements throughout their useful lives. The primary purpose of the program is information gathering. Nevertheless, EPA can require a recall if it receives information, from whatever source, including in-use testing, that a “substantial number” of any class or category of vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the emission standards, when in actual use throughout their useful life.

The program has two components: light-duty, and heavy-duty and nonroad. The light-duty program recruits approximately 50 classes totaling 150 cars and light-trucks for in-use testing, at EPA's testing facility yearly. This total may be supplemented by recruitment for “special investigations” that vary in number but are estimated to total 25 vehicles a year. Participation is strictly voluntary. Potential participants are identified from state vehicle registration records and sent a solicitation letter with a card and envelope that can be returned. Those who indicate a wish to participate are contacted in order for a followup telephone survey until three vehicles are identified. Owners verify the survey information when they deliver their vehicles to EPA, voluntarily provide maintenance records for copying, and receive a loaner car or a cash incentive.

The reporting burden for the heavy-duty and in-use component primarily involves recruiting heavy-duty trucks from operators of fleets. All testing is done by installing portable emissions monitoring devices on the vehicles during a test period at the fleet location or at testing facilities. Some other heavy-duty and non-road engines for testing may be recruited in a similar manner. One hundred and twenty-six heavy-duty vehicles and off-road vehicles and engines were tested in Fiscal Year 2006, the most recent year for which information is available. Again, all participation is strictly voluntary.

These programs are described in greater detail in the Supporting Statement, which is part of the Docket.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.14 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: individual and fleet owners of motor vehicles and engines.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4375.

Frequency of Response: once per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 619.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $46,395, including $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 19 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an updated and more particularized count of in-use testing numbers and to distinguishing between, and recalculating the burdens for, the initial solicitations for participation and subsequent participation in the light-duty program.

This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking a response to two administrative petitions to object to CAA Title V permits issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to the Louisiana Pacific Corporation's Tomahawk facility and the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Walnut Street Heating Plant. The petitions on these two permits were filed on May 9, 2006 and May 23, 2005 respectively. Under the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the Plaintiff's petition within ten (10) days after the entry of this decree by the Court and to pay a specified amount in settlement of the Plaintiff's claims for attorneys' fees. The consent decree becomes an order of the Court upon entry, and, consistent with the terms of the consent decree, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice after EPA takes final action on Plaintiffs' petitions and pays the specified amount in the consent decree in settlement of the Plaintiff's claims for attorneys' fees.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0885) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0179.

Title: Sections 73.1590, Equipment Performance Measurements.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 13,049.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours—18 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 12,335 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Nature of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Confidentiality: No need for confidentiality required.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1590 requires licensees of AM, FM and TV stations to make audio and video equipment performance measurements for each main transmitter. These measurements and a description of the equipment and procedures used in making the measurements must be kept on file at the transmitter or the remote control point for two years. In addition, this information must be made available to the FCC upon request.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance:

Under section 519 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360(i)), FDA is authorized to require: Manufacturers to report medical device related deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions; and user facilities to report device-related deaths directly to manufacturers and FDA, and to report serious injuries to the manufacturer. Section 213 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), amended section 519(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360 i(b)) relating to mandatory reporting by user facilities of deaths and serious injuries and serious illnesses associated with the use of medical devices. This amendment legislated the replacement of universal user facility reporting by a system that is limited to a “. . . subset of user facilities that constitutes a representative profile of user reports” for device related deaths and serious injuries. This amendment is reflected in section 519(b)(5)(A) of the act. The current universal reporting system remains in place during the pilot stages of the new program, and until FDA implements the new national system by regulation. This legislation provides FDA with the opportunity to design and implement a national surveillance network, composed of well-trained clinical facilities, to provide high quality data on medical devices in clinical use. This system is called the Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun).

FDA is continuing to conduct a pilot of the MedSun system before the agency issues a regulation to change from universal mandatory reporting for medical device user facilities to reporting by a representative sample of facilities. This data collection has been ongoing since February 20, 2002, and this notice is for continuation of this data collection.

FDA is seeking OMB clearance to continue to use electronic data collection to obtain the information on the 3500A Form related to medical devices and tissue products from the user facilities participating in MedSun, to obtain a demographic profile of the facilities, and to pilot a few additional questions which will permit FDA to better understand the cause of the reported adverse event. During the pilot program, participants will be asked to complete an annual outcome measures form to aid FDA in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. Participation in this pilot is voluntary and currently includes 400 facilities and over 100 beds. The use of an interactive electronic data collection system is easier and more efficient for the participating user facilities to use than the alternative paper system. The paper form takes approximately 1 hour to complete and the electronic version takes approximately 45 minutes or less to complete. Much of the data which must be filled in by hand on the paper system is automatically filled in by the electronic version.

In addition to collecting data on the electronic adverse event report form, MedSun also collects data electronically in the Device-Safety Exchange (DS-X). This data collection is also voluntary, and is an FDA moderated site. MedSun sites may send in “success stories” describing quality improvement initiatives they have implemented to improve patient safety with medical products and also may send in medical product related questions to which other sites may respond. The maximum time it takes to enter a story, or write or respond to a question, is 30 minutes.

In the Federal Register of June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32670), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. In response to that notice, no comments were received.

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

The burden estimate for the electronic reporting of adverse events is based on the number of facilities currently participating in MedSun (400) and the number of sites (50), expected to be added to the program over the next 3 years. The current average number of reports per site is seven reports annually. For purposes of the renewal for this data collection, we are estimating an average of 15 reports per site annually. This increase is expected because MedSun is working to promote reporting in general from the sites, as well as promoting reporting from specific parts of the hospitals, such as the pediatric intensive care units, electrophysiology laboratories, and the hospital laboratories. Thus, the total annual responses is calculated to be 6,000 (400 facilities x 15 data entries = 6,000). The participating MedSun reporters tell FDA that it typically takes 20 to 45 minutes to fill out the on-line form. Using the high end of that time frame, the total burden estimate for facilities participating in the electronic reporting of adverse event programs, is estimated to be 4,500 hours (6,000 report entries x .75 hours = 4,500 hours).

Determination of burden estimate for the DS-X portion of MedSun: All sites do not use this part of the software. To determine the total annual responses for DS-X, 200 participants are multiplied by the number of times each will access DS-X. Thus the total annual responses are calculated to be 1,000 reports (200 x 5 = 1,000). It typically takes an average of 30 minutes to enter data into the DS-X, given that there are various types of data entries which are possible, some of which are lengthier than others. The number of burden hours for DS-X is determined by multiplying the expected 1,000 times the site will be accessed by the average amount of time it takes to make a DS-X entry (30 minutes). Thus the total burden estimate for DS-X is calculated to be 500 hours (1,000 x 0.5 = 500). Therefore, the combined total burden estimate for MedSun and DS-X is calculated to be 5,000 hours (4,500 + 500 = 5,000).

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved or (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale, and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was removed from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.

FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in this document are no longer being marketed.

FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list the drug products listed in this document in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to those NDAs. Additional ANDAs for the products may also be approved by the agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

This request for comment was previously published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2007, for a 60-day public comment period ending August 14, 2007. No comments were received by DHS during the 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. This notice and request for comments is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

DHS invites the general public to comment on the new information collection forms, as described below.

Interested parties can obtain copies of the Forms Package by calling or writing the point of contact listed above.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program established under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-219) is responsible for collecting information used by the DHS SBIR/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Office to: 1. Identify members of the public who qualify for, and are interested in participating in, the DHS SBIR/STTR Program; 2. Facilitate SBIR/STTR outreach to the public; 3. Provide the DHS SBIR/STTR Program Office necessary and sufficient information to determine that proposals submitted by the public to the DHS SBIR/STTR Program meet criteria for consideration under the program.

Please note that the Forms Package includes nine forms for collecting proposal information from small businesses. As explained herein, these separate forms are intended to reduce burden and improve records management by (1) allowing offerors to submit identifying information only once and then to reference that previously submitted identifying information in the submittal of proposals, (2) eliminating the cost and delay associated with the submission of proposals via non-electronic means, (3) facilitating timely review of proposals, and (4) improving the accuracy of records management for proposals. The Department is committed to improving its SBIR processes and urges all interested parties to suggest how these materials can further reduce burden while seeking necessary information under the Act.

DHS is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

(3) Suggest ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Suggest ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submissions of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection: New information collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Company Registration Form, Research Topic Recommendation Form, Ask a Question Form, Collaboration Opportunity Form, Reviewer Opportunity Form, E-mail Mailing List Signup Form, E-mail Mailing List Removal Form, Proposal Coversheet Form, Cost Proposal Form.

(3) Agency Form Number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Company Registration Form (DHS FORM 10022), Research Topic Recommendation Form (DHS FORM 10018), Ask a Question Form (DHS FORM 10020), Collaboration Opportunity Form (DHS FORM 10021), Reviewer Opportunity Form (DHS FORM 10019), E-mail Mailing List Signup Form (DHS FORM 10016), E-mail Mailing List Removal Form (DHS FORM 10024), Proposal Coversheet Form (DHS FORM 10017), Cost Proposal Form (DHS FORM 10023).

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Business or other for-profit; the data collected through the SBIR Forms Package will be used to collect and review proposals from small businesses.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Company Registration Form—400 respondents annually/15 minutes per respondent, Research Topic Recommendation Form—120 respondents annually/15 minutes per respondent, Ask a Question Form—150 respondents annually/10 minutes per respondent, Collaboration Opportunity Form—100 respondents annually/15 minutes per respondent, Reviewer Opportunity Form—100 respondents annually/15 minutes per respondent, E-mail Mailing List Signup Form—300 respondents annually/10 minutes per respondent, E-mail Mailing List Removal Form—180 respondents annually/10 minutes per respondent, Proposal Coversheet Form—460 respondents annually/30 minutes per respondent, Cost Proposal Form—370 respondents annually/1 hour per respondent.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 885 burden hours.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

On September 20, 2007 the committee will meet via teleconference for the purpose of discussing the committee's comments, recommendations, and responses to a questionnaire designed to inform the development of a preliminary draft of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Biometric Reader Requirements Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The committee will discuss the above issues from approximately 1 p.m. e.s.t. to 4 p.m. e.s.t. The chairperson of the NMSAC shall conduct the teleconference meeting in a way that will, in their judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Please note that the teleconference may end early if all business is completed.

(1) September 20, 2007 teleconference meeting:

a. Discuss the committee's comments, recommendations, to inform the development of a preliminary draft of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Biometric Reader Requirements Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

b. The Chairperson will announce the time allotted for public comments and discussion.

The teleconference is open to the public, either by calling in on one of the public lines, or by attending at the Coast Guard headquarters address listed in ADDRESSES above. Please note that the teleconference may end early if all business is finished. Security requires that any member of the public who wishes to attend the teleconference in person at Coast Guard Headquarters provide his or her name and date of birth no later than 4 p.m. e.s.t., Friday, September 14, 2007 to Commander Mark Hammond at NMSAC@uscg.mil , or via phone at (202) 372-1107. Please list the docket number and NMSAC Teleconference in the subject line on all email messages. Photo identification will be required for entry into the building.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Commander Mark Hammond as soon as possible.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 23, 2007.

Dodge County for Public Assistance.

Fillmore, Houston, Olmsted, Steele, Wabasha, and Winona Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance Category B [emergency protective measures], including direct Federal assistance.)

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 27, 2007, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jesse Munoz, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Ohio to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 26, 2007, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Wisconsin to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for submission for OMB clearance of the information collection discussed in this notice, TSA solicits comments in order to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee Records Retention (ASIF).

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 1652-0018.

Forms: NA.

Affected Public: Air Carriers.

Abstract: The Aviation Transportation and Security Act (ATSA) authorizes the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to set the ASIF provided the ASIF not exceed industry aggregate Calendar Year 2000 security expenditures nor exceed an individual carrier's Calendar Year 2000 security expenditures. Under 49 CFR Part 1511, carriers must retain any and all documents, records, or information related to the amount of the ASIF, including all information applicable to the carrier's calendar year 2000 security costs and information reasonably necessary to complete an audit. This requirement includes retaining the source information for the calendar year 2000 screening costs reported to TSA; the calculations and allocations performed to assign costs submitted to TSA; information and documents reviewed and prepared for the required independent audit; the accountant's working papers, notes, worksheets, and other relevant documentation used in the audit; and, if applicable, the specific information leading to the accountant's opinion, including any determination that the accountant could not provide an audit opinion.

Number of Respondents: 196.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 392 hours annually.

The matching program will be carried out only to the extent necessary to: (1) Verify the employment and income of individuals participating in the programs identified below to correctly determine the amount of their rent and level of rental assistance; and (2) after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct analyses of the employment and income reporting of individuals participating in HUD's rental assistance programs. Currently, HUD makes the results of the computer match available to public housing agencies (PHAs) administering HUD rental assistance programs to enable them to verify employment and income and correctly determine the rent and assistance levels for individuals participating in those programs. This information is also being disclosed to the HUD Inspector General (HUD/IG), and the Attorney General in connection with the administration of the programs identified below.

Based on (1) an evaluation of the costs and benefits of disclosures made to PHAs; and (2) the adequacy of measures used to safeguard the security and confidentiality of information so disclosed, HUD will disclose employment and income information of tenants to private housing owners and management agents (O/As) and contract administrators (CAs) that administer HUD rental assistance programs under agreements with HUD. The evaluation was conducted by HUD and signed by HUD and Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) authorized officials on May 11, 2007. HUD and its third party administrators will use this matching authority to reduce or eliminate improper assistance payments in the housing programs authorized by:

(i) The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. );

(ii) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q);

(iii) Section 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5) or 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l d and 1715z-1);

(iv) Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013); or

(v) Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s).

The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (CMPPA) of 1988, an amendment to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), OMB's guidance on this statute entitled “Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503,” and OMB Circular No. A-130 require publication of notices of computer matching programs. Appendix I to OMB's Revision of Circular No. A-130, “Transmittal Memorandum No. 4, Management of Federal Information Resources,” prescribes Federal agency responsibilities for maintaining records about individuals. In accordance with the CMPPA and Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, copies of this notice are being provided to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate, and OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

This matching program is being conducted pursuant to section 453(j)(7) of the Social Security Act; sections 3003 and 13403 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, approved August 10, 1993); section 542(b) of the 1998 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-65); section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544); section 165 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3543); the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701-1750g); the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437-1437z); section 101 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq. ); and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(f)).

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants in HUD-administered programs involving rental assistance to disclose to HUD their social security numbers (SSNs) as a condition of initial or continued eligibility for participation in the programs. Subsection 453(j) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Section 217 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), authorizes HUD to provide to HHS information on persons participating in any programs authorized by:

(i) The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. );

(ii) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q);

(iii) Section 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5) or 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715ld and 1715z-1);

(iv) Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013); or

(v) Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s).

HHS shall then compare this information provided by HUD with data contained in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and report the results of the data match to HUD. The Act gives HUD the authority to disclose this information to PHAs, O/As, CAs under contract with HUD, the HUD/IG, and the Attorney General for the purpose of verifying the employment and income of individuals receiving benefits in the above programs. HUD shall not seek, use, or disclose information relating to an individual without the prior written consent of the individual, and HUD has the authority to require consent as a condition of participating in these programs.

HHS' disclosure of data from the NDNH is authorized by subsection 453(j) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Section 217 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. The disclosures from the HHS system of records, “Location and Collection System of Records,” No. 09-90-0074, will be made pursuant to routine use (17) identified in the Federal Register on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31399). This routine use authorizes HHS to “disclose to HUD information in the NDNH portion of this system for purposes of verifying employment and income of individuals participating in specified programs and, after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct analyses of the employment and income reporting of these individuals.”

HUD's primary objective in implementing the computer matching program is to verify the employment and income of individuals participating in multifamily housing programs identified in paragraph I above to determine the appropriate level of rental assistance, and to deter and correct abuse in rental assistance programs. In meeting these objectives, HUD is also carrying out a responsibility under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(k) to ensure that income data provided to O/As and CAs by household members is complete and accurate. HUD's various rental assistance programs require that applicants meet certain income and other criteria to be eligible for rental assistance. In addition, tenants participating in multifamily housing programs generally are required to report and recertify the amounts and sources of their income at least annually.

In this computer matching program, records from HUD's system of records, known as the EIV System, published at 71 FR 45066 on August 8, 2006, will be compared to OCSE's database NDNH. The NDNH contains new hire, quarterly wage and unemployment insurance information and is maintained in OCSE's system of records, “Location and Collection System”, No. 9-90-0074, last published at 70 FR 21200, April 25, 2005. HUD will only transmit to HHS for computer matching those tenant personal identifies (i.e., full name, SSN, and date of birth) that have been validated by the Social Security Administration (SSA). HHS will match the HUD-provided personal identifiers to personal identifiers included in their systems of records known as “Location and Collection System of Records,” No. 09-90-0074. HHS will provide income data to HUD only for individuals with matching personal identifiers. HUD will place matching data into EIV, which will receive: (1) New hires (W-4), wage, and unemployment insurance claim data from HHS' NDNH database; and (2) Social Security (SS) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits data from the SSA. This will allow PHAs and O/As to verify the income of tenants at the time of mandatory annual and/or interim recertifications.

Any match ( i.e. , a “hit”) will be further reviewed by HUD, the program administrator, or the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) to determine whether the income reported by tenants to the program administrator is correct and complies with HUD and program administrator requirements. Specifically, current or prior wage information and other data will be sought directly from employers.

Regarding the matching described in this notice, HUD anticipates that program administrators will take appropriate action in consultation with tenants to: (1) Resolve income discrepancies between tenant-reported and independent income source data; and (2) use correct income amounts in determining rental assistance, in accordance with Chapter 5, Sections 3 and 4 of the Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs, 4350.3 REV-1. Program administrators must compute the rent in full compliance with all applicable occupancy regulations. Program administrators must ensure that they use the correct income and correctly compute the rent. The program administrator may not suspend, terminate, reduce, or make a final denial of any rental assistance to any tenant as a result of information produced by this matching program until: (a) The tenant has received notice from the program administrator of its findings and informing the tenant of the opportunity to contest such findings; and (b) either the notice period provided in applicable regulations of the program, or 30 days, whichever is later, has expired. In most cases, program administrators will resolve income discrepancies in consultation with tenants. Additionally, serious violations, which program administrators, HUD Program staff, or HUD/IG verify, should be referred for full investigation and appropriate civil and/or criminal proceedings.

HHS will match HUD-provided tenant SSNs and personal identifiers (such as surnames and dates of birth) in HUD's system of records known as EIV, amended August 8, 2006, 71 FR 45066 to NDNH records contained in its “Location and Collection System of Records”, No. 09-90-0074. HUD will place the resulting matched data into its EIV system. The tenant records (one record for each family member) include these data elements: Full name, SSN, and date of birth. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and purposes of such uses are identified in Federal Register Notice Privacy Act of 1974; Amendment to an Existing System of Records, Enterprise Income Verification, HUD/PIH 5 (71 FR 45066).

The computer matching program will be conducted according to agreements between HUD and HHS. The computer matching agreement for the planned match will terminate either when the purpose of the computer matching program is accomplished, or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed, whichever comes first. The agreements may be extended for one 12-month period, with the mutual agreement of all involved parties, if the following conditions are met:

(1) Within 3 months of the expiration date, all Data Integrity Boards review the agreement, find that the program will be conducted without change, and find a continued favorable examination of benefit/cost results; and

(2) all parties certify that the program has been conducted in compliance with the agreement.

The agreement may be terminated prior to accomplishment of the computer matching purpose or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed (whichever comes first), by the mutual agreement of all involved parties within 30 days of written notice.

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

Please reference permit number TE132333-0 for Zenodro Homes, Inc. in all requests or comments. Please include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from us that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The sand skink is known to occur in Lake County, primarily within the Lake Wales Ridge, and much less frequently within the Mt. Dora Ridge. Although originally thought to inhabit xeric, scrub habitat exclusively, the sand skink is currently being identified in nontraditional areas with sub-marginal habitat, including pine plantation, abandoned citrus groves, and disturbed areas. Sand skinks require soil moisture for thermoregulation, egg incubation, and prey habitat. High activity periods, which have been associated with the breeding season for this species, range from mid-February to early May, with egg-hatching typically occurring from June through July. Due to the reduction in quality and acreage and the rapid development of xeric upland communities, the sand skink is reportedly declining throughout most of its range. However, biological information regarding the sand skink is limited, due to the cryptic nature of the species.

The applicant is requesting take of approximately 3.5 ac of occupied sand skink habitat incidental to the project. The 10-acre project is located approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 192 and U.S. Highway 27 within Section 25, Township 24 South, Range 26 East. The project currently includes 100 units (25 buildings with 4 units per building), associated infrastructure, and a stormwater retention pond encompassing 10.0 ac. The applicant proposes to mitigate for 3.5 ac of impacts by purchasing 7.0 ac of occupied sand skink habitat at the Morgan Lake Wales Preserve (Preserve) in Polk County. The Preserve lies within the boundaries of the Lake Wales Ridge and covers approximately 487 ac. The occupied sand skink habitat identified for this project will be protected under a conservation easement and a trust fund has been established for perpetual management.

We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, the ITP is a “low-effect” project and qualifies for categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). This preliminary information may be revised based on our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

We will evaluate the HCP and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). If we determine that the application meets those requirements, we will issue the ITP for incidental take of the sand skink. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals or plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for reclassification and delisting, and provide estimates of the time and costs for implementing the recovery measures.

The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will also take these comments into consideration in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.

The northern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Copperbelly Water Snake was listed as threatened on January 29, 1997. The northern DPS occurs in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, north of 40 degrees north latitude. The current distribution of the Copperbelly Water Snake is limited to only a few small, scattered, and isolated population clusters in south central Michigan, northeastern Indiana, and northwestern Ohio. Surveys have indicated that the species is in decline throughout these areas.

Copperbelly Water Snakes have both wetland and terrestrial habitat requirements. The species is associated with wetland complexes characterized by a preponderance of shallow wetlands, many of which draw down seasonally. Such complexes may predominantly occur as isolated wetlands distributed in a forested upland matrix, floodplain wetlands fed by seasonal flooding, or a combination of both. Fishless wetlands, suitable for high anuran (frog and toad) productivity, are required to provide habitat and a suitable prey base.

The principal limiting factor for copperbellies appears to be sufficient extent of suitable habitat. Individuals move hundreds of meters or more between wetlands and routinely use multiple wetlands over the course of an active season. They also spend substantial periods of time in upland habitat aestivating, foraging, and shedding. Populations may require many hundreds of hectares of contiguous habitat in order to persist.

The objective of the recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of the Copperbelly Water Snake so that protection by the Act is no longer necessary. Copperbelly Water Snake will be considered for delisting when the likelihood of the species becoming extinct in the foreseeable future has been reduced or eliminated by the achievement of the following criteria. The population sizes and metapopulation numbers and sizes needed for delisting and reclassification may be updated based on further research ( e.g. , population viability analysis) on viable population sizes of Copperbelly Water Snake or surrogate species.

(1) Multiple population viability is assured through the following:

(a) At least 1 population of Copperbelly Water Snake must exceed a population size of 1000 adults;

(b) Either 5 geographically distinct populations have population sizes of more than 500 individuals or 3 metapopulations must have a total population size of 3000, with none less than 500; and

(c) Populations described in (a) and (b) above must persist at these levels for at least 10 years.

(2) Sufficient habitat is conserved and managed such that for each population described in Criterion 1:

(a) Wetland/upland habitat complexes sufficient to support each population are permanently conserved, and

(b) Two suitable hibernation sites are permanently conserved within one kilometer of all suitable summer habitat.

(3) Significant threats due to lack of suitable management, adverse land features and uses, collection, and persecution have been reduced or eliminated through the following means:

(a) Habitat management and protection guidelines will be developed, distributed, and maintained;

(b) Adverse land features and uses such as row crops and roads and accompanying traffic are removed, minimized, or managed within occupied Criterion-1 landscape complexes to the extent possible; and

(c) A comprehensive education and outreach program that addresses persecution and collection deterrence will be developed and implemented.

These criteria will be met through the following actions: (1) Identify and protect habitat landscape sufficient for recovery; (2) Monitor known Copperbelly Water Snake populations and their habitat; (3) Improve baseline understanding of Copperbelly Water Snake ecology; (4) Develop recovery approaches to enhance recruitment and population size; (5) Develop and implement public education and outreach efforts; (6) Review and track recovery progress; and (7) Develop a plan to monitor Copperbelly Water Snake after it is delisted.

Copperbelly Water Snake will be considered for reclassification from Threatened to Endangered if surveys indicate either of the following criteria have occurred:

(1) There are no metapopulations of more than 500 adults.

(2) The cumulative population size is less than 1000.

If classified as Endangered, the species may be reclassified as Threatened when the reclassification criteria are no longer occurring. Additional detail on delisting and reclassification criteria is available in the draft recovery plan.

The Service solicits written comments on the draft recovery plan. All comments received by the date specified will be considered prior to approval of the plan. Written comments and materials regarding the plan should be addressed to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES ). Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the above address.

Individuals wishing copies of the application, proposed HCP, and EAS should immediately contact the Service by telephone at (760) 431-9440 or by letter to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Copies of the proposed HCP and EAS also are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office [see ADDRESSES ].

Section 9 of the Act and its implementing Federal regulations prohibit the take of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the Act, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.

The applicant is seeking a permit for take of the coastal California gnatcatcher during the life of the permit.

The applicant proposes to repair a landslide within a 16.33-acre project site that occurred on a slope adjacent to Via Bellota in the City of San Clemente, California. The proposed landslide remediation would involve remedial grading and construction of a landslide buttress at the westerly end of the canyon to stabilize the slide area. The slope would be graded and stabilized with shear pins every 10 feet. A collapsed underground stormdrain pipe that currently extends through the canyon bottom would be replaced to minimize the risk of pipe failures that could result in soil saturation and additional slope instability. An additional slope failure at the southwest end of the proposed landslide repair would be graded, excavated, filled, compacted and have hydroaugers (horizontal drains) installed which would outlet to the stormdrain being constructed for the landslide repair. Construction of a gunite terrace and down drains, which would outlet at the bottom of the slope, would occur on the surface of the finished slope. The repair of this slope failure would be concurrent with the stabilization of the landslide. Additionally, the proposed project would include the construction and sale of 20 graded lots within the Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park.

The applicant proposes to minimize and mitigate the effects to the gnatcatcher associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the HCP. The purpose of the proposed HCP's conservation program is to promote the biological conservation of the gnatcatcher. The HCP includes measures to minimize impacts to gnatcatcher by scheduling vegetation removal outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August 15). The project may result in take of one (1) pair of gnatcatchers and will permanently impact 5.36 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and temporarily impact 6.71 acres of CSS. The applicant proposes to mitigate impacts to the gnatcatcher by revegetating 8.01 acres of the disturbed CSS onsite and restoring 9.42 acres of CSS offsite.

The Proposed Action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the proposed HCP, which includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts of the project on the gnatcatcher. Three alternatives to the taking of the listed species under the Proposed Action are considered in the proposed HCP. Under the No Action Alternative, no permit would be issued, and no construction or conservation would occur. This alternative would not comply with the settlement agreement to repair the landslide. The Offsite Alternative is not feasible because the proposed project involves an existing landslide which occurs within the proposed project site. A Reduce Project Alternative is also not feasible because the proposed project represents the minimum grading and construction footprint necessary to reconstruct the slope and permanently stabilize the slide.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that approval of the proposed HCP qualifies as a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM8) and as a “low-effect” plan as defined by the Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Determination of Low-effect Habitat Conservation Plans is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) Implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) Impacts of the proposed HCP, considered together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant.

Based upon this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA documentation. We will consider public comments in making the final determination on whether to prepare such additional documentation.

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

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the proposed HCP, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, we will issue a permit to Seaview Repair LLC for the incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher from landslide remediation in the City of San Clemente, Orange County, California.

The Utah prairie dog is the westernmost member of the genus Cynomys. The species' range, which is limited to the southwestern quarter of Utah, is the most restricted of all prairie dog species in the United States. Distribution of the Utah prairie dog has been greatly reduced due to disease (plague), poisoning, drought, and human-related habitat alteration. Protection of this species and enhancement of its habitat on private land will benefit recovery efforts.

The primary objective of this SHA is to promote conservation of a threatened species through voluntary conservation, enhancement, and management of the species on private land throughout the range of the species. Through this SHA, the applicant receives the ability to oversee a safe harbor program working under a permit. We will authorize the applicant to enroll willing individual landowners (cooperators) into the program, which will require that each cooperator enter a cooperative agreement with the Panoramaland Resource Conservation and Development Council, with associated management activities, in exchange for a certificate of inclusion under the permit. This certificate will provide relief from any additional section 9 liabilities under the Act beyond those which exist at the time the cooperative agreement is signed (“regulatory baseline”).

All cooperative agreements shall include the following: (1) Use of pesticides within 100 feet (31 meters) of an active Utah prairie dog colony must be limited to only those approved for this purpose by the Service; (2) All applied practices (see below) must be planned and applied in a manner that will not adversely affect other wildlife, including threatened or endangered species; (3) Monitoring of habitat restoration activities (see below) must occur to assess the general condition of the habitat, use of the habitat by the Utah prairie dog, progress of ongoing management activities, and satisfaction of the cooperator with the project.

In addition to the above management activities, at least two of the following activities must be included in all cooperative agreements: (1) Brush management to restore plant community balance, increase visual surveillance, and increase forage quantity and quality; (2) Prescribed grazing to increase visual surveillance, increase forage quantity and quality and deferment to create vegetative varies to limit expansion to undesirable locations; (3) Seeding to restore degraded rangelands or pasturelands and bare ground and increase forage quantity and quality; (4) Prescribed burning to increase forage quantity and quality; or (5) Noxious weed control to facilitate restoration of rangelands or pasturelands, increase visual surveillance, and increase forage quantity and quality. The habitat improvements will be maintained throughout the term of the cooperative agreement. The cooperator will receive a certificate of inclusion that authorizes implementation of the conservation actions and other provisions of the cooperative agreement and authorizes incidental take and limited control of the covered species above the cooperator's baseline responsibilities, as defined in the cooperative agreement. The SHA and permit would become effective upon signature of the SHA, and issuance of the permit and would remain in effect for 50 years.

We have evaluated the impacts of this action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and determined that it warrants categorical exclusion as described in 516 DM 8.5, and/or 516 DM 2, Appendix 1. This notice is provided pursuant to NEPA, section 10 of the Act, and our Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999). We will evaluate whether the issuance of the permit complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the result of the biological opinion, in combination with our finding that will take into consideration any public comments, in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the requested permit, pursuant to the regulations that guide permit issuance.

Persons wishing to review the SHA and the application may obtain a copy by writing our Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES ) or by visiting during normal business hours. The SHA also will be posted on the Internet at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/utprairiedog/.

Send any written data or comments concerning the SHA or application to the Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Comments must be submitted in writing to be adequately considered in the Service's decisionmaking process. Please reference permit number TE-155376 in your comments, or in the request for the documents discussed herein.

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

The Cullinan Ranch restoration project would restore approximately 1,500 acres (ac) of diked baylands back to historic tidal conditions by reintroducing tidal flow into the project area. Cullinan Ranch is located in an area of the Napa River Delta that was historically defined by a network of meandering sloughs and extensive estuarine tidal marshes. Reintroduction of tidal flow will restore vital salt marsh habitat for endangered species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys raviventris ) and the California clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ), as well as provide foraging and roosting habitat for fish, migratory waterfowl, and waterbirds.

In keeping with one of the purposes of the Refuge—“to conserve fish, wildlife, or plants which are listed as endangered species or threatened species”—the Cullinan Ranch restoration project would restore historic salt marsh habitat for the benefit of threatened and endangered species, as well as many other estuarine-dependent species.

We published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) and hold a public meeting on July 15, 2002 (67 FR 46538). We held public meetings on August 7, 2002, and March 9, 2007. All meetings were announced in local newspapers. Four members of the public attended the first meeting and provided comments. One person attended the second meeting and provided no comments. All of the comments we received on the EA will go forward into the EIS planning process. During the EA planning process, we determined that possible impacts to traffic flows on Highway 37 required that we complete an environmental impact statement. In addition, since some of the project would take place on State lands belonging to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be prepared. California Department of Fish and Game is the lead State agency for this project under the CEQA.

Thus far, the Service and CDFG have identified and analyzed a total of eight alternatives based on a set of criteria including the following factors: effects to adjacent habitats, effects to the existing levees, effects on the hydrology of the existing slough channels and adjacent water bodies, costs of implementing restoration activities and long-term maintenance, and effects of project construction on existing uses on and adjacent to the Cullinan Ranch Site. Five of these alternatives were removed from further consideration because they did not meet the cost and engineering feasibility criteria as set forth by the lead agencies. Many of the alternatives considered were formulated with optional implementation features in order to minimize effects on adjacent habitats (such as the fringe marshes along Dutchman Slough and Pritchett Marsh), such as staging the Proposed Action and/or limiting the amount of tidal exchange. These features were analyzed but removed from further consideration because hydrologic modeling revealed that they would not significantly reduce adverse effects to adjacent habitats.

The lead agencies will carry forward three possible restoration alternatives to environmental analysis: the No-Action Alternative, the Preferred Restoration Alternative, and the Partial Restoration Alternative. The lead agencies will consider public input from the scoping period to determine whether any modification should be made to the alternatives or whether any additional issues should be addressed in the EIS.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the lead agencies would take no action to restore tidal influence to the Site; however, the lead agency would be required to maintain the northern levee along Dutchman and South Sloughs in perpetuity. Maintenance activities would likely be increased as the levees age and erosive action increases in response to activities undertaken by the Napa Sonoma Restoration Project, a tidal restoration project conducted by the State of California adjacent to Cullinan Ranch.

The Preferred Restoration Alternative would restore the entire 1,525-ac Cullinan Ranch Site, with implementation of the following project components:

Component 1: Construct boardwalk to provide access to existing electrical towers.

Component 2: Block drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of natural sloughs.

Component 3: Improve the CDFG Pond 1 levee and install water control structures.

Component 4: Protect Highway 37 from project induced flooding and erosion.

Component 5: Construct public access areas.

Component 6: Breach the levees along Dutchman and South Sloughs and Guadalcanal Village.

Component 7: Implement long-term monitoring.

The Partial Restoration Alternative would restore 300 ac of the Cullinan Ranch Site. The Service developed the Partial Restoration Alternative in order to limit potential impacts to the hydrology of Dutchman Slough. While it would meet the purpose and need of the project, a smaller overall area within Cullinan Ranch would be restored, and connectivity with other adjacent restoration projects would be limited.

The Partial Restoration Alternative would include implementation of the following project components:

Component 1: Block drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of the natural sloughs.

Component 2: Construct internal levee.

Component 3: Protect Highway 37 from project-induced flooding and erosion.

Component 4: Breach the levee along Dutchman Slough.

Component 5: Long-term monitoring.

Comments we receive will help us identify key concerns and issues to be evaluated in the EIS. Opportunities for public participation will occur throughout the process. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meeting should contact Cori Mustin at (916) 414-6600 as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the public meeting. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.

The Plan is both a habitat conservation plan (HCP), intended to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and a natural community conservation plan (NCCP), to fulfill the requirements of the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act). The Plan is being prepared under the combined efforts of eight local and state agencies: Santa Clara County, the City of San José, the City of Morgan Hill, the City of Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, collectively referred to as the Local Partners. Furthermore, efforts have included coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as a CEQA Responsible and Trustee Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS is a Cooperating Agency under NEPA.

Species proposed for coverage in the Plan are species that are currently listed as federally threatened or endangered or have the potential to become listed during the life of this Plan and have some likelihood to occur within the project area. Should any of these unlisted covered wildlife species become listed under the Act during the term of the permit, take authorization for those species would become effective upon listing. The Plan will provide long-term conservation and management of these species. Species may be added or deleted during the course of the development of the Plan based on further analysis, new information, agency consultation, and public comment. The Plan addresses 30 listed and non-listed species: 15 wildlife species and 15 plant species. Federally listed species proposed for coverage under the Plan include: the bay checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha bayensis ), south-central California coastal steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), central California coastal steelhead ( O. mykiss ), central valley fall-run Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ), California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ), California red-legged frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ), least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ), San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ), Tiburon Indian paintbrush ( Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta ), coyote ceanothus ( Ceanothus ferrisae ), Santa Clara Valley dudleya ( Dudleya setchellii ), and Metcalf Canyon jewelflower ( Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus ). The unlisted species proposed for coverage under the Plan include: Pacific lamprey ( Lampetra tridentata ), foothill yellow-legged frog ( Rana boylii ), western pond turtle ( Clemmys marmorata ), golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ), western burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ), tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ), Pacific Townsend's [=western] big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii ), big scale balsamroot ( Balsamorhiza macrolepis ), chaparral harebell ( Campanula exigua ), Mount Hamilton thistle ( Cirsium fontinale var. campylon ), San Francisco collinsia ( Collinsia multicolor ), fragrant fritillary ( Fritillaria liliacea ), Loma Prieta hoita ( Hoita strobilina ), smooth lessingia ( Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata ), Hall's bush mallow ( Malacothamnus hallii ), robust monardella ( Monardella villosa ssp. globosa ), rock sanicle ( Sanicula saxatilis ), and most beautiful jewelflower ( Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus ).

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 1538). The Act defines the term “take” as: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532). Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. Pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Service regulations governing permits for threatened species and endangered species, respectively, are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species of salmonids that may be covered in the Plan are promulgated in 50 CFR 222.22.

Take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the Act, and cannot be authorized under a Section 10 permit. We propose to include plant species on the permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided for them under an HCP. For the purposes of the Plan, certain plant species are further included to meet regulatory obligations under Section 7 of the Act and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). All species included on an incidental take permit would receive assurances under the Service's “No Surprises” regulations found in 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5).

The Plan would result in take authorization for otherwise lawful actions, such as public and private development that may incidentally take or harm animal species or their habitats within the Plan area, and the formation and management of a conservation program for covered species. The Local Partners will request incidental take coverage for the following seven categories of covered activities: (1) Urban development, (2) in-stream capital projects, (3) in-stream operation and maintenance activities, (4) rural capital projects, (5) rural operations and maintenance activities, (6) rural development, and (7) conservation strategy implementation.

The study area includes approximately 518,819 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. The study area was defined as the area in which covered activities would occur, impacts would be evaluated, and conservation activities would be implemented. The boundary of the study area was based on political, ecological, and hydrologic factors. The study area includes the Pajaro River watershed within Santa Clara County including all or a portion of the Llagas, Uvas, Pescadero and Pacheco sub-watersheds and the Coyote Creek watershed with the exception of the Baylands region. A large portion of the Guadalupe watershed is within the study area, as well as small areas outside of each of these watersheds.

The EIS/EIR will consider the proposed action (i.e., the issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under the Act), no action (no project/no Section 10 permit), and a reasonable range of alternatives. A detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives will be included in the EIS/EIR. The alternatives to be considered for analysis in the EIS/EIR may include: Modified lists of covered species, land coverage areas, and extent of future conservation efforts. The EIS/EIR will also identify potentially significant impacts on biological resources, land use, air quality, water quality, economics, and other environmental resource issues that could occur directly or indirectly with implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. Different strategies for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the impacts of incidental take may also be considered.

Environmental review of the EIS/EIR will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq .), its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable regulations, and Service procedures for compliance with those regulations. This notice is being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR Section 1501.7 and 1508.22 to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. The primary purpose of the scoping process is to identify important issues raised by the public related to the proposed action. Written comments from interested parties are invited to ensure that the full range of issues related to the permit application is identified. Comments will only be accepted in written form. You may submit written comments by mail, facsimile transmission, or in person (see ADDRESSES ). All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.

Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organization or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The BLM signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for Newmont Mining Corporation's Leeville Project, an underground gold mine located on the Carlin Trend in northeastern Nevada, on September 25, 2002. The Leeville Mine includes three main ore bodies located approximately 2,500 feet below ground surface. Newmont is authorized to construct ancillary mine facilities, including construction of five shafts to access the ore bodies, shaft hoists, waste rock disposal facility, refractory ore stockpiles, facilities to support mine dewatering, and facilities to support backfill operations. Surface disturbance totals 486 acres. Four years of legal review resulted in a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that portions of the cumulative effects analysis were insufficient. In response, the BLM has updated the cumulative effects analyzed in Chapter 4 of the 2002 EIS, including information on any new or proposed projects that could contribute cumulative effects, and has issued this Draft SEIS which analyzes the cumulative effects analysis for Newmont Mining Corporation's Leeville gold mine in Eureka and Elko counties, Nevada. A copy of the Draft SEIS may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 3900 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada 89801. The Draft SEIS may also be found on the Elko Field Office Internet site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/elko_field_office/blm_information/nepa.htm. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the above address during regular business hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published as part of the Final SEIS.

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

The BLM signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for Newmont Mining Corporation SOAPA project located on the Carlin Trend in northeastern Nevada, on July 26, 2002. That ROD authorized Newmont to mine an additional 350 feet below what had been previously authorized, to expand 139 acres of surface occupation, to expand waste rock disposal facilities and heap leach facilities, to continue dewatering and ground water discharge to Maggie Creek, and to construct associated ancillary facilities. Four years of legal review resulted in a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that portions of the cumulative effects analysis were insufficient. In response, the BLM has updated the cumulative effects analysis for Newmont Mining Corporation's SOAPA project in Chapter 5 of the 2002 EIS, including, any new or proposed projects that could contribute to cumulative effects, and has issued a Draft SEIS. A copy of the Draft SEIS may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 3900 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada 89801. The Draft SEIS may also be found on the Elko Field Office Internet site: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/elko_field_office/blm_information/nepa.htm. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the above address during regular business hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published as part of the Final SEIS.

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

All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday morning. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.

While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 3:00 p.m. should the Council conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should schedule their arrival accordingly.

Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.

This document provides notice that the BLM Field Office, Hollister, California intends to prepare a RMP with an associated EIS for the Clear Creek Management Area and announces public scoping meetings.

The planning area is located in southern San Benito and western Fresno counties. This planning activity encompasses approximately 63,000 acres of public land. The plan will fulfill the needs and obligations set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and BLM management policies. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis and EIS alternatives. These issues also guide the planning process. You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit formal scoping comments within 30 days after the last public meeting. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed.

Preliminary issues and management concerns have been identified by BLM personnel, other agencies, and in meetings with individuals and user groups. They represent the BLM's knowledge to date regarding the existing issues and concerns with current land management. The major issues that will be addressed in this planning effort include: impacts to public safety and human health from naturally-occurring asbestos and past mining activities; designation and management of special management areas; ecosystem management and desired conditions; wildland and prescribed fire management; livestock grazing; motorized and non-motorized recreation management; lands available for disposal or of interest for acquisition; and potential for energy development.

Issues identified through public scoping will be placed in one of three categories:

1. Issues to be resolved in the plan;

2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or

3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan.

Preliminary planning criteria include:

1. The RMP will be developed in compliance with FLPMA, all other applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and BLM supplemental program guidance.

2. The planning process will include an EIS that will comply with NEPA standards.

3. Economic and social baselines and consequences will be developed in coordination with local and county governments.

4. Initiate government to government consultation, including Tribal interests.

5. Consider the extent to which the revised plan reduces airborne asbestos emissions and minimizes asbestos exposure and addresses public health impact of the Hazardous Asbestos Area. (Ref; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Atlas Asbestos Mine Superfund Site Record of Decision (ROD), February 1991, Appendix 2, pg. 14).

6. Consider the extent to which the revised plan reduces accelerated erosion and offsite transport of asbestos fibers on vehicles and clothes due to off-highway vehicle use. (Ref; EPA Atlas Superfund Site ROD, Appendix 2, pg. 14).

7. All new data collected will have information about the data (metadata) stored in a data base. All metadata will meet the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards.

8. The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

9. The RMP will result in determinations as required by special program and resource specific guidance detailed in Appendix C of the BLM's Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).

10. Decisions in the RMP will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies as long as the decisions are in conformance with legal mandates on management of public lands.

11. Resource allocations must be reasonable and achievable within available technological and budgetary constraints.

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the RMP in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, botany, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, and sociology and economics.

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

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives.

Alternative 2, the NPS preferred alternative, was developed during the “Choosing By Advantages” process in which the planning team identifies and compares the relative advantages of each alternative according to a set of factors. This process also establishes the relationship between the advantages and costs of each alternative. This information is used to combine the best attributes of the preliminary alternatives into the preferred alternative giving the NPS the greatest overall benefit for the most reasonable cost.

Alternative 2 takes a traditional approach in which each location within the park is managed to reflect the most significant historic period or era associated with it. An enlarged contact station on Cavalier Heights would be developed. Management activities would focus on the preservation of the resources as well as the presentation of the interpretive themes appropriate to each location. Outlying portions of the park would be connected by an auto tour and round-the-park trail system. The existing transportation system would also be expanded to include more of the park. African-American history would be elevated in prominence on Camp Hill and NPS staff would work with partners to promote protection of and visitation to sites throughout the local area. A public/private partnership would be cultivated to rehabilitate and manage the historic Shipley School.

Alternative 3 would provide increased connections with private businesses and public/private organizations to help utilize, maintain and interpret historic structures while bringing additional life and excitement to Lower Town. A joint NPS/state tourism entrance complex would be developed. This alternative would provide enhanced visitor services ensuring visitor needs were met not only in the park but in the surrounding counties. Historic structures would be preserved and interpreted. Some structures would be leased to non-NPS entities to ensure upkeep and lessen the financial burden on the park. A new headquarters building would be developed somewhere in the Harpers Ferry vicinity. An enlarged transportation system would be operated in partnership with Main Street Harpers Ferry. A public/private partnership would be developed to rehabilitate and manage the historic Shipley School.

The no-action alternative describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives.

Alternative 2 focuses narrowly on the story of the Battle of Monocacy, explaining troop movements, how the landscape affected the battle, and conveying an understanding of the participants. It is highly dependent upon the visitors getting out into the landscape with restored historic structures providing reference points but not being the interpretive focal point. It includes an alternative transportation system operated by a commercial entity if market conditions allow. Visitor services would be provided at the visitor center, at the Gambrill Mill, and within a rehabilitated stone house on the Thomas Farm. An existing trail from the Gambrill Mill would be extended to the site of Wallace's headquarters, a major feature of the battlefield currently not open to visitors. A small parking area and restrooms would be provided at the latter site. Administration and maintenance facilities for Monocacy National Battlefield would move into rented space outside the boundary. The Thomas House would be rehabilitated under the Historic Leasing Program. Safer access to the 14th New Jersey Monument and a designated commemorative zone for possible new monuments would be created. A deck would be constructed over Interstate Highway 270 (I-270) to connect the Thomas and Worthington farms visually and physically with continuous landscape. The deck, featuring automobile access, would only be constructed if wholly or partly covered as mitigation for impacts resulting from the widening of I-270 currently being proposed under a Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Maryland State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.

Alternative 3 would expand the story of the battle, not only explaining the troop movements but describing the impact of the battle and the Civil War on Frederick and the surrounding countryside. It would focus more on the human story than Alternative 2 with exhibits in the restored Best and Worthington houses as well as the stone house on the Thomas Farm. Parking at each site would be developed. No alternative transportation system would be available in Alternative 3. Visitors would access the site via personal automobile. Visitor services would be provided at the visitor center, at the Gambrill Mill, and within a rehabilitated stone house on the Thomas Farm. The maintenance facility would remain in the current structure while administration offices would be in a rehabilitated Thomas House. A new, safer entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be created across Maryland Highway 355 with access under the existing bridge. The Lewis farmstead would be accessed by trail from the Worthington parking area along Baker Road. No deck would be constructed over I-270. Monocacy National Battlefield would institute a policy of no new monuments.

Alternative 4, the NPS preferred alternative, was developed with the aid of a process called “Choosing By Advantages” in which the planning team identifies and compares the relative advantages of each alternative according to a set of factors. This process also establishes the relationship between the advantages and costs of each alternative. This information is used to combine the best attributes of the preliminary alternatives into the preferred alternative giving the NPS the greatest overall benefit for the most reasonable cost.

Alternative 4 would provide visitor services at the visitor center, the Gambrill Mill, and the stone house on the Thomas Farm. In addition, exhibits would be provided at the secondary house on the Best Farm and at the Worthington House. Parking at each location would be developed. There would be no alternative transportation system. Visitors would access the site via personal automobile. The maintenance facility would remain in its current structure. An existing trail from the Gambrill Mill would be extended to the site of Wallace's headquarters, a major feature of the battlefield currently not open to visitors. Administration offices would be in the rehabilitated Thomas House. Safer access to the 14th New Jersey Monument and a designated commemorative zone for possible new monuments would be developed. Instead of a deck across I-270 connecting the Worthington and Thomas farmsteads, a small pedestrian deck would be created to allow visitors to cross between the two sites.

The planning effort will include compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws and requirements. The National Mall Plan will differ from an NPS General Management Plan in that it will cover a longer-term time frame and is not a plan for the entirety of the National Mall & Memorial Parks. National Mall & Memorial Parks includes many national park units throughout the Nation's Capital and this plan will address only the National Mall, which is comprised of West Potomac Park, the Washington Monument and the Mall, and the related Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Park. A map of the study area is available at http://www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan. In cooperation with the agencies with jurisdiction over properties adjoining the National Mall, attention will also be given to cumulative impacts outside its boundaries that affect the integrity of the National Mall.

The Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall will address visitor use issues such as civic space, events management, national celebrations, education, programs and recreation; and will identify types, locations, and character of needed visitor facilities and services, which could include food service, seating, lighting, restrooms, recreation, signage (orientation/way finding/education), and crowd management. The Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall could also identify desired site improvements, such as floral displays, water features, and other embellishments that are not commemorative in nature. Additional issues may be defined or added throughout planning.

Public involvement and civic engagement will continue to be key components in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall. As a result of the decision to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, there will be public scoping meetings and opportunities on a range of alternatives and other topics, concurrent with publication of several reports and newsletters addressing public comment and a draft range of alternatives. The thousands of comments already received by the NPS are also being considered in this process along with the information provided by cooperating agencies and others.

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The Standard specifies two paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement as well as how they use it. The purpose of the requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that manlifts are in safe operating condition.

Periodic Inspections and Records (paragraph (e)). This provision requires that each manlift be inspected at least once every 30 days. The manlift inspection is to cover at least the following items: Steps; step fastenings; rails; rail supports and fastenings; rollers and slides; belt and belt tension; handholds and fastenings; floor landings; guardrails; lubrication; limit switches; warning signs and lights; illumination; drive pulley; bottom (boot) pulley and clearance; pulley supports; motor; driving mechanism; brake; electrical switches; vibration and misalignment; and any “skip” on the up or down run when mounting a step (indicating worn gears). A certification record of the inspection must be made upon completion of the inspection. The record must contain the date of the inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection, and the serial number or other identifier of the inspected manlift.

Disclosure of Inspection Certification Records. Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA compliance officers. This record provides assurance to employers, employees, and compliance officers that manlifts were inspected as required by the Standard. The inspections are made to keep equipment in safe operating condition, thereby preventing manlift failure while carrying employees to elevated worksites. These records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)). The Agency is requesting to retain its current burden hour total of 37,801 associated with this Standard. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)).

OMB Number: 1218-0226.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Frequency: On occasion; Monthly.

Average Time Per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) for an employer to disclose the inspection certification record to 1 hour to inspect a manlift.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 37,801.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled “Addresses”). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq. ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

Attachment 1 to this Federal Register notice, entitled Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned (GALL) Report Aging Management Program (AMP) XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” contains the NRC staff's rationale for publishing the proposed LR-ISG-2007-02. Attachment 2 to this Federal Register notice, entitled Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned (GALL) Report Aging Management Program (AMP) XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” contains the proposed revisions to GALL AMP XI.E6.

The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed LR-ISG-2007-02. After the NRC staff considers any public comments, it will make a determination regarding issuance of the proposed LR-ISG.

The staff is proposing to revise GALL AMP XI.E6 to recommend a one-time inspection for electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 environmental qualification requirement instead of the period inspection as currently stated in GALL AMP XI.E6. The staff determined that this one-time inspection, on representative sample basis, is adequate to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring and/or existing preventive maintenance program is effective such that a periodic inspection program is not needed.

In reviewing the industry's documents and comments, the staff determined that although the current GALL AMP XI.E6 was based on technical bases of Electric Power Research Institute documents, Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND 96-0344, and thermography data, few operating experiences related to failed connection due to aging had been identified. Most of the operating experience related to failed connection are due to human errors or maintenance practices. The operating experience cannot support a periodic inspection as currently recommended in GALL AMP XI.E6. However, because there have been a limited number of age related failures of cable connections, a one-time inspection of the metallic portion of electrical cable connections is warranted. On this basis, the staff is revising GALL AMP XI.E6 to clarify and recommend a one-time inspection, on a representative sampling basis, to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring or an existing preventive maintenance program is effective, such that a periodic inspection is not needed.

Consistent with the requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54, Section 54.4(a), electrical cable connections support safety-related and non-safety-related functions in that the failure of the electrical cable connections precludes a function from being accomplished (10 CFR 54.4(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)).

Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. Different materials used in various cable system components can produce situations where stresses between these components change with repeated thermal cycling. For example, under loaded conditions, ohmic heating may raise the temperature of a compression terminal and cable conductor well above the ambient temperature, thereby causing thermal expansion of both components. Thermal expansion coefficients of different materials may alter mechanical stresses between the components so that the termination may be impacted. When the current is reduced, the affected components cool and contract. Repeated cycling in this fashion can cause loosening of the termination, and may lead to high electrical resistance or eventual separation of compression-type terminations. Threaded connectors may loosen if subjected to significant thermally induced stress and cycling. Because of the potential loosening of bolted cable connections, the staff included, in its updated license renewal guidance documents, AMP XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” to manage the potential aging of electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 environmental qualification requirements.

The staff included AMP XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” in Chapter XI of GALL Report, Revision 1, dated September 2005. By letter dated September 5, 2006, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML062770105), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted a white paper regarding GALL AMP XI.E6 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062770111) . NEI stated that there was not enough operating experience to support a conclusion that cable connections are a significant aging concern and that the recommended program elements of GALL AMP XI.E6 duplicate aging management activities already defined and accepted in other AMPs. NEI also stated that the expanded scope of the program includes all voltage ranges regardless of the amount of evidence from operating experience. In addition, NEI identified wording in GALL AMP XI.E6 that included connections in active components. NEI asked the staff to review its white paper to eliminate GALL AMP XI.E6 or minimize its scope and redundancy so that the plant would not be burdened with activities that have no actual aging management benefit.

On November 30, 2006, the staff met with NEI representatives to discuss the white paper. In a letter dated March 16, 2007, (ADAMS Accession No. ML070400349), the staff provided responses to each of the industry's concerns identified in the white paper. By letter dated May 25, 2007, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML071590175 and ML071590182), NEI submitted comments on the staff's responses.

In reviewing the industry's white paper and comments, the staff determined that although GALL AMP XI.E6 was based on the technical bases of Electric Power Research Institute documents, and Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND 96-0344, little operating experience related to failed connections due to aging had been identified. Most of the operating experience related to failed connections were due to human errors or maintenance practices. The operating experience cannot support the periodic inspection recommended in AMP XI.E6 in GALL Report, Revision 1, dated September 2005. However, because there have been a limited number of age related failures of cable connections, a one-time inspection of the metallic portion of electrical cable connections is warranted. On this basis, the staff is revising GALL AMP XI.E6 to clarify and recommend a one-time inspection, on a representative sampling, to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring or an existing preventive maintenance program is effective, such that a periodic inspection is not required.

The staff is proposing to revise GALL AMP XI.E6 to recommend a one-time inspection prior to the period of extended operation for electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirement instead of the periodic inspection currently stated in GALL AMP XI.E6. The staff determined that this one-time inspection, on a representative sample basis, is adequate to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring and/or the existing preventive maintenance program is effective so that a periodic inspection program is not required. The one-time inspection verifies that loosening and/or high resistance of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation are not happening and periodic inspections are not required. The one-time inspection should include testing of a representative sample of the electrical cable connection population subject to an aging effect. The sample should include each type of electrical cable connection. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high load), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selection should be documented. The one-time inspection will confirm that there are no aging effects that require management during the period of extended operation.

The applicant will take corrective actions when acceptance criteria are not met. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to sample expansion, increased inspection frequency, and replacement or repair of the affected cable connection components.

When an applicant performs periodic preventive maintenance that includes inspection and testing of cable connections, the applicant can credit this maintenance activity toward GALL AMP XI.E6. The applicant may also revise its preventive maintenance procedures to cover the inspection of cable connections to take credit for GALL AMP XI.E6.

Attached is the proposed revision to GALL AMP XI.E6. Although this proposed revision does not convey a change in the regulations or how they are being interpreted, it is being provided to facilitate preparation of future submittals in support of applications for license renewal. This LR-ISG provides a clarification of existing guidance with no additional requirements.

Cable connections are used to connect cable conductors to other cable conductors or electrical devices. Connections associated with cables within the scope of license renewal are part of this program. The most common types of connections used in nuclear power plants are splices (butt or bolted), crimp-type ring lugs, connectors, and terminal blocks. Most connections involve insulating material and metallic parts. This aging management program (AMP) focuses on the metallic parts of the electrical cable connections. This program provides a one-time inspection, on a sampling basis, to confirm the absence of age-related degradation of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation.

Generic Aging Lesson Learned (GALL) XI.E1, “Electrical Cables and Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” manages the aging of insulating material but not the metallic parts of the electrical connections. GALL XI.E1 is based on only a visual inspection of accessible cables and connections. Visual inspection may not be sufficient to detect the aging effects from thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation on the metallic parts of cable connections.

Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. Different materials used in various cable system components can produce situations where stresses between these components change with repeated thermal cycling. For example, under loaded conditions, ohmic heating may raise the temperature of a compression terminal and cable conductor well above the ambient temperature, thereby causing thermal expansion of both components. Thermal expansion coefficients of different materials may alter mechanical stresses between the components so that the termination may be impacted. When the current is reduced, the affected components cool and contract. Repeated cycling in this fashion can cause loosening of the termination, and may lead to high electrical resistance or eventual separation of compression-type terminations. Threaded connectors may loosen if subjected to significant thermally induced stress and cycling.

Cable connections within the scope of license renewal should be tested at least once prior to the period of extended operation to provide an indication of the integrity of the cable connections. The specific type of test to be performed and is to be a proven test for detecting loose connections, such as thermography, contact resistance testing, or another appropriate test justified in the application.

This program, as described, can be thought of as a sampling program. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high loading), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selections should be documented. If an unacceptable condition or situation is identified in the selected sample, corrective action program will be used to evaluate the condition and determine appropriate corrective action.

SAND 96-0344, “Aging Management Guidelines for Electrical Cable and Terminations,” indicated loose terminations were identified by several plants. The major concern is that the failures of a deteriorated cable system (cables, connections including fuse holders, and penetrations) that could prevent it from performing its intended function. This program is not applicable to cable connections in harsh environments since they are already addressed by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. Even though cable connections may not be exposed to harsh environments, loosening or high resistance of connection is a concern due to aging mechanisms discussed above.

1. Scope of Program: External connections terminating at an active or passive device are in the scope of this program. Wiring connections internal to an active assembly are considered a part of the active assembly and therefore are not within the scope of this program. This program does not include high-voltage (>35 kV) switchyard connections. The cable connections covered under the EQ program are not included in the scope of this program.

2. Preventive Actions: No actions are taken as part of this program to prevent or mitigate aging degradation.

3. Parameters Monitored/Inspected: This program will focus on the metallic parts of the connection. The monitoring includes loosening of bolted connections or high resistance of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation. A representative sample of electrical cable connections is tested. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high load), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selection is to be documented.

4. Detection of Aging Effects: A representative sample of electrical connections within the scope of license renewal will be tested at least once prior to the period of extended operation to confirm that there are no aging effects requiring management during the period of extended operation. Testing may include thermography, contact resistance testing, or other appropriate testing methods without removing the connection insulation such as heat shrink tape, sleeving, insulating boots, etc. The one-time inspection provides additional confirmation to support industry operating experience that shows electrical connections have not experienced a high degree of failures, and that existing installation and maintenance practices are effective.

5. Monitoring and Trending: Trending actions are not included as part of this program because it is a one-time inspection program.

6. Acceptance Criteria: The acceptance criteria for each test are to be defined for the specific type of test performed and the specific type of cable connections tested.

7. Corrective Actions: If test acceptance criteria are not met, the corrective action program will be used to perform an evaluation that will consider the extent of the condition, the indications of aging effect, and changes to the one-time inspection program. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to sample expansion, increase inspection frequency, and replacement or repair of the affected cable connection components. As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the corrective actions.

8. Confirmation Process: As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the confirmation process.

9. Administrative Controls: As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the administrative controls.

10. Operating Experience: Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. There have been limited number of age related failures of cable connections reported. This one-time inspection confirms the absence of aging degradation of metallic cable connections.

Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes by processing proposed changes to the standard technical specifications (STS) in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to technical specifications are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures.

This notice involves the modification of TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the owners groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-486, Revision 2. TSTF-486, Revision 2, can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.

This proposal to modify TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program, as proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2, is applicable to Combustion Engineering (CE) design plants.

To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2, include TS Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the TS Bases proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2. The staff is requesting that the TS Bases be included with the proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to the TS and the changes to the associated TS Bases form an integral change to a plant's licensing basis. To ensure that the overall change, including the TS Bases, includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes into the TS Bases document and that the licensee control changes to the TS Bases in accordance with the licensees TS Bases Control Program. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested TS Bases. However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Significant variations from the approach, or inclusion of additional changes to the license, will result in staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/or additional changes should submit a LAR that does not request to adopt TSTF-486, Revision 2, under CLIIP.

The staff issued a Federal Register Notice (72 FR 41360, July 27, 2007) that requested public comment on the NRC's pending action to approve modification of TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program, as proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2. The TSTF-486, Revision 2, can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html. TSTF-486, Revision 2, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, (the Electronic Reading Room) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

In response to the notice soliciting comments from interested members of the public about modifying TS MTC surveillance requirements, the staff received one set of comments (from the TSTF Owners Groups, representing licensees). The specific comments are provided and discussed below:

1. Comment: The Summary states that the NRC staff has prepared a model SE, model LAR, and a model NSHC. However, the last sentence of the section requests comments only on the model SE and model NSHC. Comments should also be requested on the model license amendment request as well.

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and has accepted and addressed comments to the model license amendment below.

2. Comment: Model SE, section 2.1, Proposed Change, eighth bullet. This bullet describes changes to digital SR 3.1.3.2 (in STS NUREG-1432), not analog SR 3.1.3.2 as stated.

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and the model SE, section 2.1, Proposed Change, is corrected in the notice of availability.

3. Comment: Model SE, section 7.0, References, Reference 4. Change “Tevision” to “Revision.”

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and the model SE, section 7.0 References, Reference 4 is corrected in the notice of availability.

4. Comment: Model Application, the third paragraph omits Attachment 5, which is shown in the list of Attachments below the signature.

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and Attachment 5 is now added in the third paragraph of the model application.

5. Comment: Model Application. The model Application states, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct.” This statement is not consistent with the recommended statement given in RIS 2001-18, “Requirements for Oath or Affirmation.” RIS 2001-18 recommends the statement, “I declare [or certify, verify, state] under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” Note that RIS 2001-18 states that this statement must be used verbatim. We recommend that the model Application be revised to be consistent with RIS 2001-18.

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and the model Application is revised to be consistent with RIS 2001-18.

6. Comment: Model Application Attachment 4, the regulatory commitment states “[LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] as adopted with the applicable license amendment.” This statement is incorrect as the Bases changes included for information with the license amendment request are not “adopted” with the license amendment. Bases changes are made under licensee control under the Technical Specification Bases Control Program as stated in the model Safety Evaluation. We recommend revising the commitment to state “[LICENSEE] will implement Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] consistent with those shown in the license amendment.”

Response: The staff agrees with the comment that the commitments paragraph needs to be reworded. The paragraph now reads, “[LICENSEE] will establish Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] consistent with those shown in the license amendment.”

7. Comment: Model NSHC, to be consistent with 10 CFR 50.91(a), the title of Criterion 2 should be revised to add the word “Accident” before “Previously Evaluated.” Specifically, it should state, “The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated.”

Response: The staff agrees with the comment, and the model NSHC is corrected in the notice of availability.

By letter dated June 3, 2005, (Reference 1) the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, submitted TSTF-486, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-16011),” Revision 0, for NRC review. By letter dated February 20, 2007, (Reference 2) the TSTF submitted TSTF-486, Revision 1, for NRC review. By letter dated March 10, 2007, (Reference 3) the TSTF submitted TSTF-486, Revision 2, for NRC review. TSTF-486 is proposing to change NUREG 1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,” (CE STS) Revision 3.1 (Reference 4), to generically implement moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance requirement changes associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program,” (Reference 5).

WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. To this end, WCAP-16011-P-A proposes methods to eliminate the control element assembly (CEA) worth and isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) measurements at hot zero power (HZP). The measured ITC is used to calculate the HZP MTC. WCAP-16011-P-A includes a method to substitute the measured verification of MTC at HZP with an alternate MTC verification consisting of the predicted (calculated) MTC and measured critical boron concentration (CBC) at HZP. When this alternate MTC verification is utilized, WCAP-16011-P-A adds the requirement for the early in cycle MTC measurement to verify MTC is not more negative than allowed is also used to verify MTC is not more positive than allowed. WCAP-16011-P-A adds an ITC measurement at intermediate to hot full power (HFP) and applicability requirements for core design, fabrication, refueling, startup testing, and CEA lifetime viability requirements. WCAP-16011-P-A methods can only be applied to cores that are well characterized by an existing database. WCAP-16011-P-A is only applicable to the particular plants that participated in its development, as indicated in the document.

TSTF-486 will provide standardized wording in the CE STS for plants implementing the WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup.

In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of TS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36, TS are required to include items in the following five specific categories related to station operation: (1) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance requirements (SRs); (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls. The regulations do not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS and do not explicitly prescribe specific post-refueling startup testing. However, the genesis for post-refueling startup testing can be traced to the pre-operational testing required to be specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report by 10 CFR 50.34. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.36 specifies SRs relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions for operation will be met. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, “General Design Criteria” (GDC) apply, in that the GDC establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants” apply, in that Criterion III “Design Control” requires that “ * * * measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program.” Specifically, MTC is a parameter controlled in the licensee's TS, including surveillance requirements. As a value in the TS, MTC and the applicable SRs are subject to regulatory oversight.

TSTF-486 would make the following changes to the CE STS contained in NUREG-1432.

□ The proposed change revises the MTC (Analog) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.1, Surveillance, to indicate the MTC upper limit is specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).

□ The proposed change revises the MTC (Analog) SR 3.1.3.1, Frequency, to add a requirement to verify MTC is within the upper limit within seven (7) effective full power days (EFPD) of reaching 40 EFPD of core burnup. This verification would only be required if the MTC determined prior to entering Mode 1 is determined using an adjusted, predicted MTC.

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Analog) surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2, Note, to indicate the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR.

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Analog) SR 3.1.3.2, Frequency, to replace the phrase ‘effective full power days’ with the acronym ‘EFPD.’

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.1, Surveillance, to indicate the MTC upper limit is specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.1, Frequency, to add a requirement to verify MTC is within the upper limit within seven (7) EFPD of reaching 40 EFPD of core burnup. This verification would only be required if the MTC determined prior to entering Mode 1 is determined using an adjusted predicted MTC.

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.2, Surveillance, and accompanying Note to indicate the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR.

□ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.2, Frequency, to replace the phrase ‘effective full power days’ with the acronym ‘EFPD.’ TSTF-486 includes changes to the CE STS Bases B 3.1.3 contained in NUREG-1432.

□ Deletes the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Background section. (Analog) (Digital)

□ Modifies the first sentence of the first paragraph in the LCO section to state that the COLR contains both positive and negative MTC limits. Modifies the third sentence of the first paragraph in the LCO section to state the purpose of the positive MTC limit in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital).

□ Inserts a new paragraph in the LCO section, between the existing first and second paragraphs, into the LCO section to explain the positive MTC limits contained in CE STS LCO 3.1.3. (Analog) (Digital).

□ Modifies the current second paragraph in the LCO section to include a discussion of how MTC may be controlled using CEA position and boron concentration. (Analog) (Digital).

□ Modifies the Surveillance Requirements section by adding a Reviewer Note describing the use of the Alternate MTC verification method contained in WCAP-16011-P-A. (Analog) (Digital).

□ Modifies the first paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section, breaking it into three paragraphs. The new first paragraph consists of the first and second sentences and precedes the Reviewer's Note; the text is otherwise unchanged. The new second paragraph is the third sentence of the current first paragraph; the text is otherwise unchanged. The new third paragraph is the remainder of the current first paragraph, it is modified to state the MTC verification must occur within seven (7) effective full power days of reaching 40 effective full power days and that the MTC limits are in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital).

□ The existing second paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section becomes the fourth paragraph and is modified to state the end of cycle MTC limit is specified in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital).

□ The References section is modified to add, in brackets, WCAP-16011-P-A. (Analog) (Digital).

As stated previously, WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The NRC approved WCAP-16011-P-A on January 14, 2005, for referencing in license applications to the extent specified and under the limitations stated in the topical report and NRC evaluation.

CE STS SR 3.1.3.1 (Analog) and SR 3.1.3.1 (Digital) are being revised to add a frequency that is required by WCAP-16011-P-A when the alternate MTC verification method is used to verify MTC is within the upper limit during startup testing. That frequency coincides with the SR 3.1.3.2 verification that MTC is within the lower limit at 40 EFPD. This frequency is consistent with WCAP-16011-P-A and therefore acceptable.

CE STS SR 3.1.3.1 (Analog), and SR 3.1.3.1 (Digital) are also being revised to state the upper MTC limit is in the COLR. Currently, the location of the upper limit is not specified in either Analog or Digital CE STS SR. CE STS 3.1.3 (Analog) LCO states, “The MTC shall be maintained within the limits specified in the COLR. The maximum positive limit shall be that specified in Figure 3.1.3-1.” Figure 3.1.3-1 is contained in the CE STS. CE STS 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO states, “The MTC shall be maintained within the limits specified in the COLR, and a maximum positive limit as specified below:” Two equations then follow for determining the maximum positive limit. The use of the plural in the LCO statements indicate the STS expect there to be upper and lower limits in the COLR, of which the upper limit would be bounded by the value in the TS. Therefore, specifying in the SR that the upper limit be within the COLR limit is consistent with the CE STS. The specific wording is also consistent with current phrasing in the CE STS. Therefore, this change is acceptable.

CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is also being revised to state the lower MTC limit is in the COLR. Currently, the location of the lower limit is specified in the Note. This change makes the CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) consistent with the analog equivalent. The specific wording is also consistent with current phrasing in the CE STS. Therefore, this change is acceptable.

The first sentence of the Note in CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Analog) and SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is being revised from, “If the MTC is more negative than the COLR limit * * *” to “If the MTC is more negative than the limit specified in the COLR * * *” SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is being revised from “Verify MTC is within the lower limit.” to “Verify MTC is within the lower limit specified in the COLR.” In all instances the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR. The revised wording is consistent with other CE STS references to the COLR. Therefore, this change is acceptable.

The revision to the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) Background section is removing an incorrect statement in the CE STS that was identified during the staff's review associated with Reference 1. The TSTF has agreed to remove the sentence as part of TSTF-486 Revision 2. Therefore, this change is acceptable.

The modification of the first paragraph in the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO section is intended to identify the location of the upper and lower MTC limits. This change is consistent with the proposed changes to CE STS described above and therefore acceptable.

The addition of a new second paragraph in the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO section is intended to describe the purpose of the limits and reinforce that the upper MTC limit in the COLR must be bounded by that in the TS. This change is consistent with the proposed changes to CE STS described above and therefore acceptable.

The modification to the current second paragraph in the LCO section adds a discussion of how MTC may be controlled using CEA position and boron concentration. While staff acknowledges that the combination of CEA position and boron concentration can be used to control MTC, the staff believes it is an incomplete discussion that ignores the effects of temperature, pressure, and power level. However, there is no intention that the STS Basis become a tutorial. Therefore, while the discussion is incomplete it is not detrimental to safety and the change is acceptable.

The Reviewer's Note added to the Surveillance Requirements section describes the restrictions on the use of the Alternate MTC surveillance. The Reviewer's Note is consistent with WCAP-16011-P-A and therefore acceptable.

The current first paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section is being modified by breaking it into three paragraphs.

□ The new first paragraph consists of the first and second sentences and precedes the Reviewer Note, the text is otherwise unchanged. This is an editorial change and acceptable.

□ The new second paragraph is the third sentence of the current first paragraph, the text is otherwise unchanged. Making the sentence a separate paragraph is an editorial change and acceptable.

□ The new third paragraph is the remainder of the current first paragraph; it is modified to state the MTC verification must occur within seven (7) effective full power days of reaching 40 effective full power days and that the MTC limits are in the COLR. These changes are editorial and acceptable.

Moving the existing second paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section to become the fourth paragraph and modifying it to state the end of cycle MTC limit is specified in the COLR are editorial changes. These changes are acceptable.

Adding WCAP-16011-P-A, in brackets, to the References section is appropriate. The brackets indicate WCAP-16011-P-A is an optional reference. It would only be included on plants that have implemented the Alternate MTC surveillance. This change is acceptable.

TSTF-486 would provide standardized wording in the CE STS for plants implementing the WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup. The changes to NUREG-1432 proposed by TSTF-486 have been reviewed for consistency with the current NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A. The proposed changes have been found to be consistent with NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A, therefore the proposed changes are acceptable.

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) No comments or (2) the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff].

The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. [For licensees adding a TS Bases Control Program: The amendment also changes record keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.] The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, and there has been no public comment on the finding [FR ]. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that (1) There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

1. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “TSTF-486, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-16011),” “dated June 3, 2005. (ADAMS ML051580191).

2. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-486, Revision 0, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-16011),” and Submittal of Revision 1,” dated February 20, 2007. (ADAMS ML070510667)

3. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “TSTF-486, Revision 2, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-16011),” dated March 10, 2007. (ADAMS ML071300267).

4. NUREG 1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,” Revision 3.1. (ADAMS ML062510040 and ML062510042).

5. WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction Program,” dated February 2005. (ADAMS ML050660127).

The following example of an application was prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate use of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The model provides the expected level of detail and content for an application to revise technical specifications regarding moderator temperature coefficient surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) program using CLIIP. Licensees remain responsible for ensuring that their actual application fulfills their administrative requirements as well as Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.

The GSP provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. The GSP is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461, et seq. ), as amended (the “1974 Act”), and is implemented in accordance with Executive Order 11888 of November 24, 1975, as modified by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations.

In a Federal Register notice dated May 21, 2007, USTR announced that the deadline for the filing of product petitions, other than those requesting waivers of “competitive need limitations” (CNLs), and country practice petitions for the 2007 GSP Annual Review was June 22, 2007 (72 FR 28527). The product petitions received have requested changes in the list of GSP-eligible products by adding new products and by removing duty-free treatment for products from specific GSP-eligible countries.

The interagency GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) has reviewed the product petitions, and the TPSC has decided to accept for review the product petitions listed in “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” posted on the USTR Web site. That list sets forth, for each type of change requested: the case number, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading number, a brief description of the product (see the HTSUS for an authoritative description available on the USITC Web site ( http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/ ) and the petitioner for each petition included in this review). Acceptance of a petition for review does not indicate any opinion with respect to the disposition on the merits of the petition. Acceptance indicates only that the listed petitions have been found eligible for review by the TPSC and that such review will take place.

Pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.0(b), the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC has recommended, and the TPSC has accepted or continued the review of several country practice petitions (see “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” posted on the USTR Web site). Acceptance of a petition for review does not indicate any opinion with respect to the disposition on the merits of the petition. Acceptance indicates only that the petition has been found eligible for review by the TPSC and that such review will take place.

The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC invites comments in support of or in opposition to any petition that has been accepted thus far for the 2007 GSP Annual Review. Submissions should comply with 15 CFR part 2007, except as modified below. All submissions should identify the subject article(s) in terms of the case number and eight digit HTSUS subheading number, if applicable, as shown in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” available at: http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html [2007 Annual Review].

In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, USTR requires electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. These submissions should be single-copy transmissions in English, with the total submission not to exceed 30 single-spaced standard letter-size pages in 12-point type and three megabytes as sent as a digital file attached to an e-mail transmission. E-mail submissions should use the following subject line: “2007 GSP Annual Review” followed by the Case Number and, if a product petition, the eight-digit HTSUS subheading number found in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” on the USTR Web site (for example, 2007-05 7202.99.20) and, as appropriate “Written Comments”, “Notice of Intent to Testify”, “Pre-hearing brief”, “Post-hearing brief” or “Comments on USITC Advice”. (For example, an e-mail subject line might read “2007-05 7202.99.20 Written Comments”.) Documents must be submitted in English in one of the following formats: WordPerfect (.WPD), Adobe (.PDF), MSWord (.DOC), or text (.TXT) files. Documents cannot be submitted as electronic image files or contain embedded images, e.g., “.JPG”, “.TIF”, “.BMP”, or “.GIF”. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Excel files, formatted for printing on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.

If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the document. The non-confidential version must also be clearly marked at the top and bottom of each page (either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL”). Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents.

For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the party (government, company, union, association, etc.) which is making the submission.

E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including the sender's name, organization name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. The e-mail address for these submissions is FR0711@USTR.EOP.GOV. Documents not submitted in accordance with these instructions might not be considered in this review. If unable to provide submissions by e-mail, please contact the GSP Subcommittee to arrange for an alternative method of transmission.

Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for review approximately two weeks after the relevant due date by appointment in the USTR public reading room, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC. Appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling (202) 395-6186.

A hearing will be held by the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC on October 3, 2007, for product petitions accepted for the 2007 GSP Annual Review (i.e., for product petitions other than those requesting CNL waivers) beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW., Washington, DC 20508. A second hearing will be held by the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC on October 5, 2007 for country practice petitions in the 2007 GSP Annual Review. The hearings will be open to the public and a transcript of the hearings will be made available for public inspection or can be purchased from the reporting company. No electronic media coverage will be allowed.

All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the above “Requirements for Submissions”, the name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number and email address, if available, of the witness(es) representing their organization to Marideth Sandler, Executive Director of the GSP Program by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007. Requests to present oral testimony in connection with the public hearing must be accompanied by a written brief or statement, in English, and also must be received by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited above and are submitted, in English, by 5 p.m., October 19, 2007. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing briefs or statements, in English, by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007, and post-hearing written briefs or statements, in English, by 5 p.m., October 19, 2007.

In accordance with sections 503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act and the authority delegated by the President, pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. Trade Representative has requested that the USITC provide its advice on the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the elimination of U.S. import duties for all GSP beneficiary countries or, where applicable, the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the removal from eligibility for duty-free status under GSP for such article from the specified countries, with respect to the articles that are specified in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review.” Comments by interested persons on the USITC Report prepared as part of the product review other than those requesting CNL waivers should be submitted by 5 p.m., 10 days after the date of USITC publication of its report.

Pursuant to section 182 of the Trade Act, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Those countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant U.S. products are to be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies or practices that are the basis of a country's designation as a Priority Foreign Country are normally the subject of an investigation under the section 301 provisions of the Trade Act.

USTR may not identify a country as a Priority Foreign Country if it is entering into good faith negotiations, or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, to provide adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights.

On April 27, 2007, USTR announced the results of the 2007 Special 301 Review and stated that Out-of-Cycle Review of Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan would be conducted this year. Pursuant to these Out-of-Cycle Reviews, USTR requests written submissions from the public concerning acts, policies, and practices regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan.

Requirements for comments: Comments should include a description of experiences with respect to Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan in the field of intellectual property rights and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan on U.S. industry. Comments should be as detailed as possible and should provide all necessary information for assessing the effect of any acts, policies, and practices of Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan. Any comments that include quantitative loss claims should be accompanied by the methodology used in calculating such estimated losses.

Comments must be in English. No submissions will be accepted via postal service mail. Documents should be submitted as either WordPerfect, MS Word, .pdf, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files. All comments and supporting documentation by USTR will be made available to the public through electronic or other means. A submitter requesting that information contained in a comment be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. A non-confidential version of the comment must also be provided. For any document containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the character “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Submissions should not include separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. To the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.

DATES:

Submissions must be received on or before 10 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007.

All comments should be addressed to Jennifer Choe Groves , Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, and sent (i) Electronically, to FR0606@ustr.eop.gov (please note, “FR0606” consists of the numbers “zero-six-zero-six,” with “Brazil, Czech Republic, Pakistan Out-of-Cycle Review” in the subject line, or (ii) by fax, to (202) 395-9458, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the e-mail address above.

Public inspection of submissions: (1) Within one business day of receipt, non-confidential submissions will be placed in a public file open for inspection at the USTR reading room, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Annex Building, 1724 F Street, NW., Room 1, Washington, DC. An appointment to review the file must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance and may be made by calling Jacqueline Caldwell at (202) 395-6186. The USTR reading room is open to the public from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

USTR is providing notice that the United States has requested the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement compliance panel pursuant to the DSU. The Article 21.5 panel, which will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations by February 29, 2008.

On September 25, 1997, the DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings in a dispute brought by the United States, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico challenging the EC's then existing import regime for bananas. The DSB ruled that the EC's import regime for bananas was inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). An arbitrator appointed under Article 21.3 of the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) awarded the EC a “reasonable period of time” in which to come into compliance until January 1, 1999. At the end of the reasonable period of time, the EC implemented a first set of changes to the import regime for bananas that were found to perpetuate a discriminatory tariff-rate quota (“TRQ”) system and license-based system in breach of the GATT 1994 and the GATS. In November 1999, the EC announced a second attempt to reform its banana regime, which would comprise a two-stage process involving a transition period during which a TRQ system would be applied with preferential access for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, after which a tariff-only regime would be introduced. The transition period was to end no later than January 1, 2006. This two-stage proposal was memorialized in separate understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador in April 2001. Documents related to this longstanding dispute are available in the USTR reading room and on the WTO Web site, http://www.wto.org.

On January 1, 2006, the EC implemented a new import regime for bananas which consists of: (1) A zero-duty, 775,000 ton TRQ available only to bananas originating in ACP countries; and (2) an MFN duty of 176 euros per ton for all other bananas.

The United States considers that the EC has failed to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and that the EC's regime remains inconsistent with its WTO obligations. The United States considers that the EC's current import regime for bananas is:

(1) Inconsistent with Article I of the GATT 1994 because it applies a zero-duty TRQ to imports of bananas originating in ACP countries in a quantity up to 775,000 tons but does not accord the same duty-free treatment to imports of bananas originating in all other WTO Members; and

(2) Inconsistent with Article XIII of the GATT 1994—including Article XIII:1 and XIII:2—because it reserves the 775,000 ton zero-duty TRQ for imports of bananas originating in ACP countries but does not provide access to this preferential TRQ to imports of bananas originating in non-ACP substantial or non-substantial supplying countries.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to FR0718@ustr.eop.gov , with “EC Bananas (DS27)” in the subject line, or (i) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above.

USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.

Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the commenter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” must be marked at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Persons who submit confidential business information are encouraged to also provide a non-confidential summary of the information.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determine by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-27, EC Bananas Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186.

Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that a dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland.

With respect to the measures at issue, the EC's request for establishment of a panel refers to the following:

1. The continued application of, or the application of the specific anti-dumping duties resulting from certain anti-dumping orders specified in the EC request (see list, below) as calculated or maintained in place pursuant to the most recent administrative review or, as the case may be, original proceeding or changed circumstances or sunset review proceeding at a level in excess of the anti-dumping margin which would result from the correct application of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (whether duties or cash deposit rates or other form of measure).

2. Certain specified administrative reviews, or, as the case may be, original proceedings or changed circumstances or sunset review proceedings with the anti-dumping orders specified in the EC request (see list, below).

3. Determinations in relation to all companies and any assessment instructions, whether automatic or otherwise, issued at any time pursuant to the specified antidumping-orders.

The orders, administrative reviews, investigations, and sunset reviews specified by the EC are as follows:

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, DOC Case No. A-449-804, ITC Case No. 731-TA-878: 69 FR 74498 (December 14, 2004); 71 FR 74900 (13 December 2006); 71 FR 7016 (February 10, 2006); 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007) (Original Order: 66 FR 46777, 7 September 2001).

Ball Bearings from Italy, DOC Case No. A-475-801, ITC Case No. 731-TA-393: 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006); 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005); 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004); 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003); 71 FR 51850 (August 31, 2006); 71 FR 54469 (September 15, 2006). (Original Order: 15 May 1989; Continuation Order: 71 FR 54469, 15 September 2006)).

Ball Bearings from Germany, DOC Case No. A-428-801, ITC Case No. 731-TA-392: 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006); 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005); 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004); 69 FR 63507 (November 2, 2004); 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003); 70 FR 58383 (October 6, 2005); 71 FR 51850 (August 31, 2006); 71 FR 54469 (September 15, 2006).

Ball Bearings from France, DOC Case No. A-427-801, ITC Case No. 731-TA-391: 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006); 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005); 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004); 69 FR 62023 (October 22, 2004); 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003); 68 FR 43712 (July 24, 2003); 70 FR 58383 (October 6, 2005); 71 FR 51850 (August 31, 2006); 71 FR 54469 (September 15, 2006).

Stainless Steel Bar from France, DOC Case No. A-427-820: 70 FR 46482 (August 10, 2005); 71 FR 30873 (May 31, 2006). (Original Order: 67 FR 10385, 7 March 2002).

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany, DOC Case No. A-428-825, ITC Case No. 731-TA-798: 71 FR 74897, December 13, 2006); 70 FR 73729 (December 13, 2005); 69 FR 75930 (December 20, 2004); 69 FR 6262 (February 10, 2004); 69 FR 67896 (November 22, 2004); 70 FR 41236 (July 18, 2005); 70 FR 44886 (August 4, 2005). (Original Order: 64 FR 40557, 27 July 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005).

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, DOC Case No. A-423-808, ITC Case. No. 731-TA-788: 70 FR 72789 (December 7, 2005); 69 FR 74495 (December 14, 2004); 70 FR 2999 (January 19, 2005); 69 FR 61798 (October 21, 2004); 70 FR 38710 (July 5, 2005); 70 FR 41202 (July 18, 2005). (Original Order: 64 FR 25288, 11 May 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 41202, 18 July 2005).

Ball Bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom, DOC Case No. A-412-801, ITC Case No. 731-TA-399: 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005); 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004); 69 FR 62023 (October 22, 2004); 70 FR 58383 (October 6, 2005); 71 FR 51850 (August 31, 2006); 71 FR 54469 (September 15, 2006).

Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, DOC Case No. A-428-830: 71 FR 42802 (July 28, 2006); 71 FR 52063 (September 1, 2006); 69 FR 113 (June 14, 2004).

Certain Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Netherlands, DOC Case No. A-421-807, ITC Case No. 731-TA-903: 70 FR 71523 (December 11, 2006) (Preliminary results); 70 FR 18366 (April 11, 2005); 69 FR 115 (June 16, 2004); 69 FR 43801 (July 22, 2004); 72 FR 7604 (February 16, 2007) (Preliminary Results). (Original Order: 66 FR 55637, 2 November 2001).

Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, DOC Case No. A-475-829, 69 FR 113 (June 14, 2004). (Original Order: 67 FR 10384, 7 March 2002).

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, DOC Case No. A-475-824, ITC Case No. 731-TA-799: 70 FR 7472 (February 14, 2005); 70 FR 13009 (March 17, 2005); 68 FR 69382 (December 12, 2003); 69 FR 67896, November 22, 2004; 70 FR 41236 (July 18, 2005); 70 FR 44886 (August 4, 2005). (Original Order: 64 FR 40567, 27 July 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005).

Certain Pasta from Italy, DOC Case No. A-475-818, ITC Case No. 731-TA-734: 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005); 70 FR 6832 (February 9, 2005); 69 FR 6255 (February 10, 2004); 69 FR 81 (April 27, 2004); 72 FR 5266 (February 5, 2007). (Original Order 61 FR 143, 24 July 1996; Continuation Order 66 FR 55160, 1 November 2001).

Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, DOC Case No. A-428-602, ITC Case No. 731-TA-317: 71 FR 4348 (January 26, 2006); 71 FR 14719 (March 23, 2006); 71 FR 16552 (April 3, 2006). (Original Order: 6 March 1987).

Purified carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden, DOC Case No. A-401-808, ITC Case No. 731-TA-1087: 70 FR 28278 (May 17, 2005); 70 FR 39334 (July 7, 2005); 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005).

Purified carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, DOC Case No. A-421-811, ITC Case No. 731-TA-1086;

Purified carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, DOC Case No. A-405-803, ITC Case No. 731-TA-1084: 70 FR 28275 (May 17, 2005); 70 FR 39334 (July 7, 2005); 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005).

Chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain, DOC Case No. A-469-814, ITC Case No. 731-TA-1083: 70 FR 24506 (May 10, 2005); 70 FR 36205 (June 22, 2005); 70 FR 36562 (June 24, 2005).

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their comments either (i) Electronically, to FR0702@ustr.eop.gov , Attn: “EC Zeroing II (DS350)” in the subject line, or (ii) by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above.

USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket No. WT/DS-350, EC Zeroing II) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.