Title: Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides (7 CFR part 110)

OMB Number: 0581-0164.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 30, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, (Pub. L. 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 136i-1) (Act), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to require that certified pesticide applicators maintain records of applications of federally restricted use pesticides for a period of two years.

The Act also (1) requires that the pesticide records be made available to Federal or State officials, and to licensed health care professionals who need the records in order to treat an individual who may have been exposed to restricted use pesticides; (2) requires that the Secretary of Agriculture enforce the recordkeeping and access requirements of the Act and promulgate regulations to administer the Act; and (3) establishes civil penalties for violations of the Act. A certified applicator is an individual who is certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a State under cooperative agreement with EPA to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides.

The Secretary of Agriculture delegated his responsibilities under the Act to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which promulgated regulations to administer the Act at 7 CFR part 110 (regulations). In order to enforce these regulations, AMS must collect information through personal inspections of the application records of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides.

The information collected by AMS is used only by authorized representatives of AMS (AMS' Science and Technology national staff, other designated Federal employees and designated State supervisors and their staffs) who are delegated authority to access the records pursuant to subsection (b) of the Act. The collected information is used to administer the Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping program. AMS is the primary user of this information. The secondary user of the information is each designated State agency which has a cooperative agreement with AMS.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated as follows:

(a) Approximately 307,151 certified private applicators (recordkeepers) apply restricted use pesticides. It is estimated that certified private applicators average 1.31 hours per recordkeeper for a total of 402,368 annual burden hours. This is a 247,708 increase in burden hours from the previous collection request due to an increase in the number of restricted use pesticide applications being made by certified private applicators. The new data indicates that certified private applicators make an average of 16 restricted use pesticide applications per year. Of the 307,151 certified private applicators, approximately 3,600 are selected annually for recordkeeping inspections. It is estimated that a private applicator that is subject to a pesticide record inspection has an annual burden of .330 hours, which contributes to a total annual burden of 1,195 hours.

(b) There are approximately 281,428 certified commercial applicators nationally who are required to provide copies of restricted use pesticide application records to their clients. It is estimated that certified commercial applicators have a total annual burden of 1,386,877 hours.

(c) It is estimated that State agency personnel who work through cooperative agreements with AMS to inspect certified private applicator's records have a total annual burden of 7,274 hours. This is a decrease of 1,702 burden hours from the previous collection request due to fewer states participating in cooperative agreements with AMS.

Respondents: Certified private and commercial applicators, State governments or employees, and Federal agencies or employees.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 592,233—The total number of respondents includes certified commercial applicators, certified private applicators (recordkeepers) and designated State agency personnel utilized to inspect certified private applicator's records.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The estimated number of responses per respondent is as follows:

(a) It is estimated that certified private applicators (recordkeepers), record on an average 16 restricted use pesticide application records annually.

(b) It is estimated that certified commercial applicators provide 616 copies of restricted use pesticide records to their clients annually.

(c) State agency personnel, who work under cooperative agreements with AMS to conduct restricted use pesticide records inspections, have approximately 3,591 responses annually.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,797,714. This revision in the Total Annual Burden on Respondents increases the current burden by 116,917 hours due to the increase in the number of restricted use pesticides applications that the private applicators are making annually. Although there are fewer states participating in the cooperative program, the total annual burden did increase.

Comments are invited on: (1) 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) 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) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to Bonnie Poli, Pesticide Records Branch, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, Suite 203, 8609 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia 20110-4582. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 5 and October 19, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 56983; 59251) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 19, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 59291-59252) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance to conduct the Census Participation Survey to measure public knowledge, awareness, and perceptions about the 2010 Census. This research is designed to complement previous research conducted for Census 2000 as well as the Census Planning Database (a geographic summary file with Census 2000 response information) to inform the strategic direction of the 2010 Census Integrated Communications Plan (ICP).

Every ten years, the Census Bureau is congressionally mandated to count everyone (citizens and non-citizens) residing in the United States. An accurate count is critical for many reasons including but not limited to:

• Congressional reapportionment,

• Redistricting congressional boundaries;

• Community planning; and

• Distribution of public funds and program development.

• Increase mail response;

• Improve cooperation with enumerators; and

• Improve overall accuracy and reduce differential undercount

For the first time in Census 2000, the Census Bureau ran a paid advertising campaign to support Census data collection activities. This campaign was considered a very successful initiative and one of several reasons cited with helping to reverse declining mail response rates. In developing the 2000 campaign, the Census Bureau relied on one's likelihood to engage in civic activities as a proxy to one's likelihood to respond to the census. The campaign was built on the slogan, “This is your Future. Don't leave it blank.” The intent of this slogan and related variations was to incite a sense of personal benefit, community benefit, and infer a sense of urgency. The target mail response rate for the 2010 Census has been set at 69 percent, higher than the 67 percent obtained in Census 2000. To support this goal, the ICP includes a communications campaign based on behavior during the 2000 Census and current knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, barriers, and motivations specific to 2010 Census participation. This model will provide contemporary insight into public motivations specific to the census. There are many commonalities to Census 2000 such as low Census favorability; lack of awareness and personal relevancy; and many motivators that were leveraged in 2000 still resonate. However, the social and political landscape has shifted since Census 2000 and the Census Bureau is facing new challenges such as:

• Distrust in government is higher than ever;

• Confidentiality issues heightened;

• Shifting core values (quality of life; family values);

• Definition of community is broadening;

• Recent debates on immigration; and

• Increased language barriers.

The purpose of the Census Participation Survey is to inform tactical and strategic decisions for the ICP. The collected data will not be used to produce official Census Bureau estimates.

The Census Participation Survey will be administered to a sample of adults. Most interviews will be selected though random-digit-dialing and administered via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), while a small portion of the interviews will be conducted in-person. Some of the CATI interviews will be conducted on the respondent's cell phone. A $10 gift will be provided to respondents as compensation for costs (inbound charges) incurred from the cell phone interview. Additionally, a $10 gift will be provided to respondents to the in-person interview to increase the response rate. When an address is available, respondents will be notified of the data collection with a pre-notification letter. The Census Participation Survey will focus on the following topic areas:

• Awareness about the census and attitudes and perceptions about the Census Bureau;

• Barriers and motivations for census participation;

• Potential 2010 Census messaging alternatives;

• Current issues and their relevancy to census participation;

• Individual-level participation in Census 2000 (self-reported) and participation intent for the 2010 Census; and

• Demographics, socioeconomics, and psychographics.

OMB Control Number: None.

Form Number: CPS-2008.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182.

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

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

Authority: The authority for the Precision Measurement Grants Program is as follows: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272 (b) and (c), NIST conducts directly, and supports through grants, a basic and applied research program in the general area of fundamental measurement and the determination of fundamental constants of nature.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number: Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609.

Program Description: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Precision Measurement Grants Program is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2008. The Precision Measurement Grants Program is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. As part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the Precision Measurement Grants Program . The key requirement is that the proposed project is consistent with NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science.

Funding Availability: NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each. Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2008,” Public Law 110-92 as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond December 14, 2007, the expiration of the current continuing resolution.

Award start dates for new grants are expected to be October 1, 2008. Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award both, one, or neither of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds. NIST plans to fund the awards as grants. If collaboration by NIST scientists in the scope of work is appropriate for any award, a cooperative agreement will be issued instead.

Cost Share Requirements: The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; international organizations; and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority.

Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are:

1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity?

2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant?

3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding?

4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully?

Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Review and Selection Process: All abbreviated proposals and full applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive abbreviated proposals and full applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive abbreviated proposal and full application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

All applicants must submit an abbreviated proposal (original and two signed copies), containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five (5) double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the ADDRESSES section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each abbreviated proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section for this program. Each reviewer will evaluate and rank the proposals. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but the ranking will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

The Chief of the Atomic Physics Division of the Physics Laboratory, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above in the Program Description section. Applicants not selected as finalists will be notified in writing.

Finalists will then be asked in writing to submit full proposals up to ten (10) pages in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Content and Form of Application Submission section of the FFO notice. The same independent reviewers that reviewed the abbreviated proposals will then evaluate the full proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description section of this notice.

The final approval of selected applications and award of grants will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible.

Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.

The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 69 FR 78,389 (Dec. 30, 2004) applies to this notice. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402).

Collaborations with NIST Employees: All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget.

If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.

Use of NIST Intellectual Property: If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. 200-212, 37 CFR Part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in Section B.20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements 69 FR 78,389 (Dec. 30, 2004). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803.

Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.

If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.

Collaborations Making Use of Federal Facilities: All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed using Federal Facilities. If an applicant proposes use of NIST facilities, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention and a description of the facilities. Any use of NIST facilities must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the availability of the facilities and approval of the proposed usage. Any unapproved facility use will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. Examples of some facilities that may be available for collaborations are listed on the NIST Technology Services Web site, http://ts.nist.gov/.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects: Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, the Food and Drug Administration, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics.

NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current registration filed with DHHS and to be performed by institutions possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.

On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf for funding such research.

Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals: Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks.

Limitation of Liability: Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2008,” Public Law 110-92 as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond December 14, 2007, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. In no event will NIST or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Funding of any award under any program announced in this notice is subject to the availability of funds.

Executive Order 12866: This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

Executive Order 12372: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

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

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

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

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

On December 15, 2006, PRBO submitted an application to NMFS requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ), northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), and Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) incidental to central California seabird research operations on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS. A detailed description of the proposed activity is provided in the July 27, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 41294), therefore, it is not repeated here.

A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the applications and proposed authorizations was published on July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41294). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).

Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHAs subject to the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. The Commission further recommends that any authorization issued specify that, if a mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal occurs that appears to be related to the research, activities will be suspended while NMFS determines whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or mortalities or until such taking can be authorized by regulations promulgated under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the applicant must institute monitoring and mitigation measures sufficient to afford the potentially affected marine mammal species adequate protection from sources of disturbance, including disturbance of behavior.

NMFS further agrees with the Commission that research activities must be suspended immediately if a dead or injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to the applicant's activities. This requirement is a condition in the IHA.

The marine mammals most likely to be found in the proposed seabird research areas are the California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and northern elephant seals. General information of these species can be found in Caretta et al. (2007), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2006.pdf . Additional information on these species is provided in the July 27, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 41294). Refer to these documents for information on these species.

The only anticipated impacts would be temporary disturbances caused by the appearance of researchers near the pinnipeds. The potential disturbance might alter pinniped behavior and cause animals to flush from the area. Animals may return to the same site once researchers have left or go to an alternate haul out site, which usually occurs within 30 minutes (Allen et al., 1985). Long term effects of this disturbance are unlikely, as very few breeding animals will be present in the vicinity of the proposed seabird research areas. The proposed seabird research would not result in the physical altering of marine mammal habitat. No marine mammal habitat is expected to be affected by the proposed action. No marine mammal critical habitat is found within the proposed research area.

There is no subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the proposed research area, therefore, there will be no impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses.

It is estimated that approximately 2,422 California sea lions, 500 harbor seals, 273 northern elephant seals, and 14 Steller sea lions could be potentially taken by Level B harassment. This estimate is based on previous research experiences, with the same activities conducted in the proposed research area, and on marine mammal research activities in these areas. These incidental harassment take numbers represent approximately 1 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 1.5 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.3 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.03 percent of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion. All of the potential takes are expected to be Level B behavioral harassment only. No injury or mortality to pinnipeds is expected or requested.

The researchers would take all possible measures to reduce marine mammal disturbance for the activities described above. Researchers would keep their voices hushed and bodies low in the visual presence of pinnipeds. Seabird observations at North Landing on Southeast Farallon Island would be conducted in an observation blind where researchers are shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds. Beach landings on Ano Nuevo Island would only occur after any pinnipeds that might be present on the landing beach have entered the water. Researchers accessing seabird nest boxes would crawl slowly if pinnipeds are within view.

Visits to intertidal areas of Southeast Farallon Island during research activities would be coordinated to reduce potential take. All research goals on Ano Nuevo Island would be coordinated to minimize the necessary number of trips to the island. Once on Ano Nuevo Island, researchers would coordinate monitoring schedules so areas near any pinnipeds would be accessed only once per visit.

Researchers would take notes of sea lions and seals observed within the proposed research area during studies. The notes would provide dates, time, tidal height, species, numbers of sea lions and seals present, and any behavior changes. PRBO will submit a final report, including these notes, to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA, if it is issued.

In July 2007, NMFS prepared a draft EA on the issuance of an IHA to PRBO to take marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to conducting seabird research in central California. The draft EA was released for public review and comment along with the application and the proposed IHA. All comments are addressed in full in the Comments and Responses section. Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft EA and on December 4, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed project. No environmental impact statement was prepared.

A section 7 consultation under the ESA was conducted with NMFS Headquarters Office of Protected Resources' Endangered Species Division. On October 19, 2007, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion and concluded that the issuance of an IHA to PRBO is likely to affect, but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions. An incidental take statement is included in the Biological Opinion.

For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions hauled out in the vicinity of the proposed research area. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the survey period, may be made by these species, this action will have a negligible impact on California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions.

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

NMFS has issued an IHA to PRBO for the potential harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions incidental to conducting of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides for the Parties to consult to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns or fabrics in the free trade area. See NAFTA Annex 300-B, Section 7.2(a). The NAFTA implementing legislation authorizes the President to modify the rules of origin pursuant to any agreement reached by the NAFTA Parties, as provided in Section 7.2(a) of Annex 300-B. See Section 202(q)(3)(A) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) that accompanies the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. NAFTA Implementation Act, SAA, H. Doc. 103-159, Vol. 1, at 491 (1993). The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. SAA at 491. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. See section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act.

On October 16, 2007, the Chairman of CITA received a request from the National Textile Association (NTA), alleging that certain rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”) cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for textile filaments, staple yarns, and woven fabrics, classified under chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and nonwoven and other textile articles of chapter 56, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”). CITA is also considering a broad change in the rule of origin for all other textile products to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”).

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the rayon fiber described above can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 14, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that these rayon fibers can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

The Board is a discretionary federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense to provide the Department of Defense independent advice concerning matters arising from the military service obligations of members of the National Guard and Reserve members and the impact on their civilian employment. Pursuant to DoD policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) may act upon the advice of the Board.

The Board shall be composed of no more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of Defense for three-year terms, and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis. Those members, who are not full-time federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109.

Board members, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) shall select the Board's Chairperson from the Board membership at large.

The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp .

The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

1. Project Description. The Town of North Topsail Beach, located along the north-northeast 11.1 miles of Topsail Island in North Carolina, is proposing to nourish the oceanfront shoreline and reposition New River Inlet channel as a means to address a severe erosion problem that is threatening development and town infrastructure. The entire stretch of the Town's shoreline has experienced a considerable amount of erosion over the last 20 years due primarily to the impact of numerous tropical storms and hurricanes during the mid to late 1990's and due to impacts of the uncontrolled movement of the main ebb channel in New River Inlet. The Town has stated that the shoreline erosion and residual effects of the storms have left North Topsail Beach in an extremely vulnerable position with regard to its ocean front development and infrastructure. They have estimated that over $250 million in property tax value as well as roads, water and sewer lines, and other utilities are at risk. The stated goals and objectives of the project are the following: (1) Stabilize the oceanfront shoreline located immediately south of New River Inlet, (2) Provide short-term protection to the 31 imminently threatened residential structures over the next zero to five years, (3) Provide long-term protection to Town infrastructure and approximately 1,200 homes over the next thirty years, (4) Reduce or mitigate for historic shoreline erosion along 11.1 miles of oceanfront shoreline, (5) Improve recreational opportunities, (6) Use beach compatible material, (7) Maintain the Town's tax base, and (8) Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing natural resources.

The project is divided into three sections; North, South, and Central. The North Section starts from the inlet shoulder and runs approximately 21,000 linear feet along the ocean shoreline. The Central Section is located both north and south of NC Hwy 210/55 Bridge and is approximately 16,500 linear feet, while the South Section, which is outside of the CBRS designation, includes approximately 20,320 linear feet of shoreline. The Town is proposing to undertake the nourishment along the 11.1 miles of oceanfront in a five phase approach within a dredging window between November 16 and March 31 of any year. The first phase will include the relocation of the inlet channel with the dredged inlet material being used to nourish approximately 14,000 linear feet of shoreline in the North Section. Construction timeline for Phase One will be within the 2008-2009 dredging window. Phase Two would take place during the 2010-2011 dredging window using the offshore borrow source, and will nourish approximately 5,140 linear feet in the North Section. The third phase will place offshore borrow material along approximately 11,500 linear feet within the southern part of the Central Section, and is proposed during the 2012-2013 dredging window. For Phase Four, offshore material will be used to nourish 6,880 linear feet of shoreline in the north part of the Central Section and part of the southern tip of the North Section. This construction will take place in the 2014-2015 dredging window. The final phase of nourishment will encompass the entire South Section, using the offshore borrow site, and will be conducted in the 2016-2017 dredging window.

2. Proposed Action. Within the Town's preferred alternative, the relocation of the inlet channel is a main component in the protection of the North Section of the project area. The inlet management plan includes the repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment along an approximate 150 degree azimuth and maintaining that position and alignment approximately every four years. Initial construction of the new channel and subsequent maintenance events will result in a channel width of 500 feet at −18 foot NAVD depth. The new channel will start within the inlet gorge and will extend approximately 3,500 linear feet southeast breaching through the ocean bar. The amount of material to be extracted during the realignment of the channel is approximately 635,800 cubic yards. The composite mean grain size of the dredged material is approximately 0.32mm, compared to the native beach material at 0.23mm.

For the remaining phases, all the material used to nourish the beaches will be dredged from an offshore borrow area. The borrow area is located approximately 1.5 miles offshore within the Central Section, and just southwest of the NC 210 bridge. The site is approximately 482 acres in size and is divided into two sections: (1) A 459-acre area with finer grain size (composite mean grain size of 0.21mm) containing approximately 6.19 million cubic yards and (2) a 23-acre area with coarser material at a composite mean grain size of 0.33mm encompassing approximately 357,000 cubic yards. The division of the borrow site into coarser and finer materials resulted in the use of the Point of Intercept Concept or “perched beached” for the placement of material in areas where nearshore hard bottom communities were present. For nourishment in areas within close proximity to nearshore hard bottoms, the beach profiles were designed to use coarser material in order to reduce the fill toe of equilibrium.

3. Alternatives. Several alternatives have been identified and evaluated through the scoping process, and further detailed description of all alternatives is disclosed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIS. The applicant's preferred alternative is to relocate the main ocean bar channel to a southerly alignment, implement an inlet management plan, nourish approximately 11.1 miles of ocean shoreline, and to construct the work in a five phase approach.

4. Scoping Process. A public scoping meeting was held on June 5, 2005 and a Project Delivery Team (PDT) was developed to provide input in the preparation of the EIS. The PDT comprised of local, state, and federal government officials, local residents and nonprofit organizations.

The COE has initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the EIS assesses the potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and is coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) to insure the projects consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The COE is coordinating closely with DCM in the development of the EIS to ensure the process complies with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, as well as the NEPA requirements. The Draft EIS has been designed to consolidate both NEPA and SEPA processes to eliminate duplications.

This DEIS evaluates the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of new facilities at the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda, Maryland. Alternative One would add approximately 1,144,000 square feet (SF) of new building construction, provide approximately 508,000 SF of renovation to existing building space at NNMC, and provide approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. It would accommodate approximately 2,500 additional staff. The new construction or improvements to existing facilities would provide medical care and administration additions and alterations, a Traumatic Brain Injury/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Intrepid Center of Excellence, permanent and temporary lodging facilities (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and Fisher Houses TM ), a new physical fitness center, additional parking, and road and utility improvements on the installation as needed to support the new facilities. Under Alternative Two, the same facilities are proposed; some facility sites change and the choice of new construction versus renovation of some facilities differs from Alternative One. Alternative Two would add to NNMC approximately 1,230,000 SF feet of new building construction, approximately 423,000 SF of building renovation, and approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. The estimated staffing increase would also be approximately 2,500 personnel under Alternative Two.

The Notice of Intent (NOI), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2006, identified the following alternatives to be under consideration in the EIS: (1) Implement the BRAC recommendation; (2) Implement the BRAC recommendation and provide for future anticipated growth, support activities, and changes to the installation; (3) No action, with NNMC continuing to maintain and repair existing facilities without additional growth.

Since November 2006, a number of planning decisions have been made by Department of Defense (DoD) that have affected, but not substantially changed, the proposed NEPA analysis on the best way to ensure world-class care is provided for the Nation's wounded veterans both today and in the post-BRAC environment. Special housing, billeting, food service, medical support, and administrative support requirements were determined and then appropriately sited on the NNMC Bethesda campus. The decisions made by DoD resulted in a refocused effort in this DEIS to concentrate in the Proposed Action entirely on implementation of the BRAC mandate through Warrior Care. Any other non-BRAC related future growth, support activities, or changes to the installation are considered when reasonably foreseeable in the analysis of cumulative impacts.

The DEIS finds that environmental impacts from Alternative One and Alternative Two would be similar. The DEIS analysis indicates an increase in off-base traffic volumes due to the increase in staff, patients, and visitors. The off-base traffic impact would be the same for either alternative. The DEIS finds that proposed new facilities would involve a small increase in impervious surface area and minimal impacts to biological resources because the new facilities would be constructed on either existing development such as parking lots or on landscaped areas. The increase in runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surface would be controlled with storm water management and erosion and sediment control measures.

Emissions of air pollutants from the Proposed Action during construction and operations would not exceed de minimis levels or ambient standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for protection of the airshed and thus air quality impacts would not be significant. Short-term increases in noise levels would occur during construction that are typical of construction activities. No major issues are anticipated for utilities required to support the NNMC expansion.

Formal consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act with appropriate agencies will be conducted by the DON to ensure that construction of new buildings in the NNMC Bethesda Historic District would be accomplished with minimal impacts to cultural resources.

The DEIS finds that the Proposed Action is compatible with existing land use plans and land use planning underway within NNMC. Beneficial economic impacts to the surrounding economy are anticipated under each action alternative, resulting from the large investment in construction and renovation of facilities. Local residents could experience increased traffic on weekdays and weekends. Personnel relocating from their positions at WRAMC are not expected to change their off base residences; therefore, impacts to local housing, schools, or community services are expected to be minimal. Adherence to applicable regulations and guidance will avoid impacts to human health and safety.

The DEIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and interested parties. The DEIS is also available for public review at the following local libraries and public facilities: Bethesda Library, 7400 Arlington Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; Chevy Chase Library, 8005 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; Davis Library, 6400 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817; Kensington Park Library, 4201 Knowles Avenue, Kensington, MD 20895; Rockville Library, 21 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850; Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814; Bethesda Urban Partnership, Inc., 7700 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; and Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1204, Bethesda, MD 20814.

The DEIS is also available at the following Web sites: http://www.bethesda.med.navy.mil/Professional/Public_Affairs/BRAC/ ; and http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brac .

The DON also invites the general public, local governments, state and other federal agencies to participate in the public hearings where the DON will receive oral and written comments on the DEIS. Two hearings will be held: January 9 and 10, 2008 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

The public hearings will be conducted in English. A court reporter will be available to record oral comments. The DON requests that people desiring to speak submit, in writing, their intention to participate and that they frame their statements to meet a three (3) minute limitation on the length of any oral statement. The limit is not intended to constrain an individual's ability to make comments but rather to ensure that all persons requesting to make a comment are given that opportunity. The DON also requests that technical statements or statements of considerable length be submitted in writing.

For requests for special assistance, sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired, language interpreters, or other auxiliary aids at the scheduled public hearings, please contact: Officer in Charge—BRAC, National Naval Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, Telephone: 301-295-2722 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, fax: 301-295-5020, or e-mail: NNMCEIS@med.navy.mil .

To allow time for the arrangements to be made, any request for special assistance at the public hearings must be made to the DEIS point of contact by January 04, 2008.

In January 2007, the President of the United States, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, announced that the Marine Corps would increase its end strength from approximately 180,000 to 202,000 by 2011. This increase is needed to provide adequate time to recover between deployments, train to meet combat readiness, and prepare for redeployment. The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that Marines are properly prepared and trained for existing combat and homeland protection missions and future conflicts.

The Marine Corps uses the Total Force Structure Process (TFSP) to transform strategic guidance, policy constraints, and commander-generated recommendations into the integrated capabilities required to execute Marine Corps missions. The TFSP relies on a detailed, integrated examination of doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, and facilities, ensuring that no aspect of the enterprise is ignored when new requirements for the Corps are identified. In order to meet the purpose and need, the proposed action of increasing the Marine Corps must be expedited while not compromising the current Marine Corps missions. Existing force structure and organization would be maintained in order to not further complicate, retard, or jeopardize the Marine Corps mission. The proposed action accomplishes this by augmenting existing units with Marines possessing the appropriate skill sets. These existing units are already established at current Marine Corps bases. Consequently, alternative bed-down locations to the proposed action are not feasible because they would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.

Specifically, the EIS will evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed action at the three installations on the following resources: Land; water resources (e.g., wetlands and coastal zones); natural resources, including threatened and endangered species; air; earth resources (e.g., soils and geology); visual resources, and cultural resources. Issues and activities that will be addressed include: Hazardous materials and hazardous waste; noise; recreation; transportation; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. Other resources, activities, and issues as identified through the scoping process will be included in the EIS and the analysis will evaluate both direct and indirect impacts, and account for cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Jacksonville and Havelock, NC regional area.

The USMC values the good relationship between its three installations in eastern NC and the surrounding communities, and will work closely with community stakeholders to assess the potential impacts of the proposed action on traffic and other transportation issues; stormwater and other environmental concerns; population increases and the related concerns with respect to schools, child care, and other quality of life issues; and other potential impacts that may be identified.

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

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Lender's Application for Payment of Insurance Claim, ED Form 1207.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 51.

  Burden Hours: 14.

Abstract: The ED Form 1207—Lender's Application for Payment of Insurance Claim is completed for each borrower for whom the lender is filing a Federal claim. Lenders must file for payment within 90 days of the default, depending on the type of claim filed.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3488. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov , 202-245-6432. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

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

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Loan Discharge Application: Unpaid Refund.

Frequency:

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 400.

Burden Hours: 200.

Abstract: If a school fails to make a required refund of a Federal Family Education Loan Program or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program loan, a borrower uses this form to apply for a discharge of the portion of the loan that was not refunded.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3546. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), provides that no new base load electric powerplants may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA section 201(d), in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register reciting that the certification has been filed.

The following owners of proposed new base load electric powerplants have filed self-certifications of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

A recent experiment conducted for the Department of Homeland Security by the Idaho National Laboratory demonstrated that under certain conditions energy infrastructure could be intentionally damaged through cyber attack. In that experiment, researchers caused a generator to malfunction through an experimental cyber attack. This potential cyber vulnerability, which was recently broadcast on CNN, was the subject of an October 17, 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.

The Commission intends to immediately issue a directive that requires all generator owners, generator operators, transmission owners, and transmission operators that are registered by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and located in the United States to provide to NERC certain information related to actions they have taken or intend to take to protect against the potential cyber vulnerability discussed above. The Commission will also require NERC to make this information available for Commission review.

Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824o, vests the Commission with authority over the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) and over the users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System for purposes of approving and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. Under section 215, the term “Reliability Standard” includes requirements for the cyber security protection of the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the Commission is charged not merely with approving (or remanding) Reliability Standards filed by the ERO, but also with ordering the ERO to submit a proposed standard or a modification to an existing standard that “addresses a specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this section.”

A number of efforts are underway to secure the Nation's electric infrastructure against potential cyber vulnerabilities. One such effort is an advisory issued by NERC, acting through the Electric Sector-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC), to generator owners, generator operators, transmission owners, and transmission operators. This advisory identified a number of short-term measures, mid-term measures and long-term measures designed to mitigate the potential cyber vulnerability discussed above.

It has been represented that a number of entities are already either secured against the potential cyber vulnerability referred to above or have taken steps to mitigate this vulnerability, and NERC has since sent a data request to industry members. That data request is limited in scope. It is essentially a request that industry members indicate if their mitigation plans are “complete,” “in progress,” or “not performing.” This information is not sufficient for the Commission to discharge its duties under section 215 of the Federal Power Act because it does not provide information on what facilities are the subject of the mitigation plans, what steps to mitigate the potential cyber vulnerability are being taken, when those steps are planned to be taken, and, if certain actions are not being taken, why not.

In sum, given the seriousness of this potential vulnerability and given that the NERC data request does not provide information that the Commission needs to discharge its statutory responsibilities, the Commission believes further action is necessary in order to ensure that the owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System have taken or are taking appropriate steps to protect the Bulk-Power System.

Section 307 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825f, authorizes the Commission to “investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or matters which it may find necessary or proper * * * to aid in * * * prescribing rules or regulations [under the Federal Power Act], or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation.” Section 39.2(d) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 39.2(d), requires owners and operators to “provide the Commission * * * such information as is necessary to implement section 215 of the Federal Power Act as determined by the Commission.”

The Commission believes that the information that will be requested is critical to ensuring that appropriate mitigation of this potential cyber vulnerability is put in place and that it is put in place as quickly as possible. The Commission believes that an accurate overview of the actions taken and expected to be taken in the industry is a necessary first step to determine whether any further measures need to be taken by the Commission to ensure the safety and reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission is very sensitive to the need to preserve confidentiality of the information requested and the need to minimize the burden on industry. Accordingly, the information will be examined on-site at NERC headquarters, and disclosure by NERC will be on a need-to-know basis to NERC personnel and the Commission and its staff.

Respondents will provide the information listed below to NERC, which will secure the information and treat the responses as nonpublic information available, as noted above, on a need-to-know basis to NERC personnel and to the Commission and its staff. Following Commission review, the information will be returned to the submitters.

Each respondent will be required to provide the following information to NERC:

1. A copy of the owner or operator's plan for responding to the cyber vulnerability outlined in the ES-ISAC advisory, along with a general description of the facility for each plan,

2. A description of the measures—short-term, mid-term, and long-term—taken or planned to be taken (and the timeframe for implementing such measures) as recommended by the ES-ISAC advisory to mitigate the risks associated with this cyber vulnerability including projected completion dates if they fall outside the ES-ISAC advisory deadlines,

3. An explanation of how the plan and measures described above secure the owners or operators' facilities against this cyber vulnerability, and

4. If an owner or operator believes no actions are necessary regarding a measure, an explanation why it believes that to be so, along with a general description of the facility that the respondent proposes to exempt from actions under the advisory.

The Commission estimates that it would take each respondent no more than 12 hours to generate the requested information. The Commission estimates that the number of respondents will be approximately 1,150. Therefore, the total number of hours it would take to comply with the reporting requirement would be 13,800. The Commission estimates a total cost of $1,214,400 to respondents @ $88 per hour, based on salaries for professional and clerical staff, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs.

The Commission has submitted this reporting requirement to OMB for approval. OMB's regulations describe the process that federal agencies must follow in order to obtain OMB approval of reporting requirement. See 5 CFR part 1320. The standards for emergency processing of information collections appear at 5 CFR 1320.13. If OMB approves a reporting requirement, then it will assign an information collection control number to that requirement. If a request for information subject to OMB review has not been given a valid control number, then the recipient is not required to respond.

OMB requires federal agencies seeking approval of reporting requirements to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed reporting requirement. 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv). Therefore, the Commission is soliciting comment on:

(1) Whether the collection of the information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of this information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of this information on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

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

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, EPA Headquarters Library, 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 Docket is 202-566-1742.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

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

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

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are importers into the United States of nonroad engines and vehicles.

Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1723.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0320.

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

Abstract: This ICR covers the burden associated with EPA Form 3520-21, a declaration form for importers of nonroad vehicles or engines into the United States, which identifies the regulated category of engine or vehicle and the regulatory provisions under which the importation is taking place. In addition, this ICR covers the possible burden of EPA Form 3520-8 if it comes to be used to request final importation clearance for Independent Commercial Importers of nonroad Compression Ignition engines, who would have to bring the engines into compliance and provide test results, comparable to the use of Form 3520-8 for on-road vehicles and engines as covered by OMB 2060-0095. The information is used by Agency enforcement personnel to verify that all nonroad vehicles and engines subject to Federal emission requirements have been declared upon entry or that the category of exclusion or exemption from emissions requirements has been identified in the declaration. The information is also used to identify and prosecute violators of the regulations and to monitor the program in achieving the objectives of the regulations. The Forms are required before making customs entry; see 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.81 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 4,801.

Frequency of response: Once per entry. (One form per shipment may be used.)

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.5.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 9749.

Estimated total annual costs: $520,787. This includes an estimated burden cost of $484,785 and an estimated cost of $36,002 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

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

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

On February 4, 2003, the Gila River Indian Community (Community) and other parties entered into the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Gila River Agreement). The Gila River Agreement established the basis to resolve the Community’s water rights claims to the Gila River in Arizona. On December 10, 2004, Congress enacted the Settlement Act as Title II of AWSA and authorized, ratified, and confirmed the provisions of the Gila River Agreement except to the extent that any provision of the agreement conflicts with the Settlement Act.

The purposes of the Settlement Act are:

(1) To resolve permanently certain damage claims and all water rights claims among the United States on behalf of the Community, its members, and allottees, and the Community and its neighbors;

(2) To authorize, ratify, and confirm the Gila River Agreement;

(3) To authorize and direct the Secretary to execute and perform all obligations of the Secretary under the Gila River Agreement;

(4) To authorize the actions and appropriations necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under the Gila River Agreement and the Settlement Act; and

(5) To authorize and direct the Secretary to execute the New Mexico Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement to allow the Secretary to exercise the rights authorized by subsections (d) and (f) of section 304 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1524).

In order for the waivers and releases set forth in the Gila River Agreement and Settlement Act to become fully effective and enforceable, the Secretary is required to make a statement of findings that certain conditions have been met.

In accordance with section 207(c) of the Settlement Act, I find as follows:

1. The Gila River Agreement has been revised through an amendment to eliminate any conflict with the Settlement Act and, as so revised, the Gila River Agreement has been executed by the Secretary and the Governor of the State of Arizona.

2. In accordance with subsections 104(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(2) of AWSA, 102,000 acre-feet of Central Arizona Project (CAP) agricultural priority water has been reallocated to the Community and up to 96,295 acre-feet of CAP agricultural priority water has been reallocated to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to be held under contract in trust for further allocation. This reallocation is memorialized through a decision published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2006, and the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement which prohibits direct use of the water by ADWR.

3. In accordance with subsection 104(b) of AWSA, 65,647 acre-feet of uncontracted CAP municipal and industrial water has been reallocated as memorialized in the Federal Register notice of August 25, 2006, and subcontracts for delivery have been offered. Amendments to all CAP contracts and subcontracts to include the requirements of subsection 104(d) have been offered.

4. In accordance with section 204 of the Settlement Act, the Secretary has reallocated and contracted with the Community for additional CAP entitlements of 18,600 acre-feet from the Roosevelt Water Conservation District; 18,100 acre-feet relinquished by the Harquahala Valley Irrigation District; and 102,000 acre-feet as provided in section 104 of AWSA.

5. The Community's CAP Water Delivery Contract has been amended in accordance with section 205 of the Settlement Act. The Secretary has executed leases of Community CAP water to Phelps Dodge and to the Cities of Goodyear, Peoria, Phoenix and Scottsdale, and has executed the Reclaimed Water Exchange Agreement.

6. The Secretary has established a program to repair and remediate subsidence damage and related damage in accordance with section 209(a) of the Settlement Act.

7. The parties have executed the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, the “master agreement” authorized, ratified, and confirmed by section 106(a) of AWSA, and all conditions to its enforceability have been satisfied.

8. $53 million has been identified and retained in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund for the benefit of the Community in accordance with section 107(b) of the Settlement Act.

9. Pursuant to paragraph 27.4 of the Gila River Agreement, the Arizona State legislature and the Governor of Arizona have determined that the appropriate and commensurate contribution from the State of Arizona is the State's recognition of the Community's interest in acquiring and placing into trust status a parcel located within the exterior boundaries of the Community's reservation and the State's willingness to cooperate in this effort, together with the firming of 15,000 acre-feet of non-Indian agricultural priority CAP water to the equivalent of municipal and industrial priority water.

10. Pursuant to subparagraph 16.9 of the Gila River Agreement, the Salt River Project has paid $500,000 to the Community.

11. The judgments and decrees attached to the Gila River Agreement as exhibits 25.18A (Gila River adjudication proceedings) and 25.18B (Globe Equity Decree proceedings) have been approved by the respective courts.

12. The dismissals attached to the Gila River Agreement as exhibits 25.17.1A and B, 25.17.2, and 25.17.3A and B have been filed with the respective courts and any necessary dismissal orders have been entered.

13. The State of Arizona has enacted legislation to implement the Southside Replenishment Program in accordance with subparagraph 5.3 of the Gila River Agreement; to authorize the firming program required by section 105 of AWSA; and to establish the Upper Gila River Watershed Maintenance Program in accordance with subparagraph 26.8.1 of the Gila River Agreement.

14. The State of Arizona, through the Arizona Water Banking Authority, has entered into an agreement with the Secretary to carry out the obligation of the State to firm CAP agricultural priority water to municipal and industrial priority water under section 105(b)(2)(A) of AWSA.

15. Final judgment has been entered in Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. United States (No. CIV 95- 625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-PHX-EHC) (Consolidated Action) in accordance with the repayment stipulation in that case.

The 1982 Act was enacted to resolve the water right claims of the San Xavier and Shuk Toak Districts of the Tohono O'odham Nation (Nation). Disagreement about the allocation of settlement benefits precluded implementation of the 1982 Act. On December 10, 2004, the Settlement Amendments Act was enacted as Title III of AWSA in order to resolve issues which precluded implementation of the 1982 Act.

The purposes of the Settlement Amendments Act are:

(1) To authorize, ratify, and confirm the Tohono O'odham settlement agreement, the Tucson agreement, the Asarco agreement and related leases, and the FICO agreement;

(2) To authorize and direct the Secretary to execute and perform all obligations of the Secretary under those agreements; and

(3) To authorize the actions and appropriations necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under those agreements and the Settlement Amendments Act.

In accordance with section 302(b) of the Settlement Amendments Act, I find as follows:

1. The Tohono O'odham settlement agreement has been revised to eliminate any conflicts with the Settlement Amendments Act and, as so revised, has been executed by the parties and the Secretary.

2. The Secretary and other parties to the Tucson agreement, the Asarco agreement and the FICO agreement described in section 309(h)(2) Settlement Amendments Act (as contained in the amendment made by section 301) have executed those agreements.

3. The Secretary has approved the interim allottee water rights code described in section 308(b)(3)(A) of the Settlement Amendments Act (as contained in the amendment made by section 301).

4. Final dismissal with prejudice has been entered in the Alvarez case and the Tucson case on the sole condition that this Statement of Findings be published.

5. The State court having jurisdiction over the Gila River Adjudication proceedings has approved the judgment and decree attached to the Tohono O'odham settlement agreement as exhibit 17.1, and that judgment and decree have become final and nonappealable.

6. Implementation costs totaling $24,068,400, as specified in section 302(b)(6) of the Settlement Amendments Act, have been identified and retained in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.

7. The State of Arizona has enacted legislation that qualifies the Nation to earn long-term storage credits under the Asarco agreement; implements the San Xavier groundwater protection program in accordance with paragraph 8.8 of the Tohono O'odham settlement agreement; enables the State to assist the Secretary in firming Central Arizona Project water pursuant to section 306(b); and confirms the jurisdiction of the State court having jurisdiction over Gila River Adjudication proceedings and decrees to carry out the provisions of sections 312(d) and 312(h) of the Settlement Amendments Act (as contained in the amendment made by section 301).

8. The Secretary and the State of Arizona have agreed to an acceptable schedule under which the State shall firm 15,000 acre-feet of agricultural priority Central Arizona Project water as referred to in section 105(b)(2)(C) of AWSA.

9. Final judgment has been entered in Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. United States (No. CIV 95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-PHX-EHC) (Consolidated Action) in accordance with the repayment stipulation in that case.

The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests. 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 applicant requests a permit to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the California clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) in conjunction with ecological research in San Francisco, Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin Counties for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests and amendment to take (harass by survey) the light footed clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris levipes ) and take (band chicks) the California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ) in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take ( survey by pursuit ) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, tag, collect tissue, mark by toe-clipping, and release) the arroyo southwestern toad ( Bufo microscaphus californicus ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests an amendment to take (harass by survey and monitor) the California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ) in conjunction with population monitoring and other life history studies in Orange County California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, and collect and kill) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests an amenment to take (capture, handle, mark, translocate, and release) the Stephens' kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys stephensi ) in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

The Tribe proposes that 289.88± acres of land located within the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, be acquired into trust for the Tribe. The land is located in the foothills on the west side of the San Jacinto Mountains that separate the San Jacinto River Basin to the west from the Coachella Valley to the east, and adjacent to the San Jacinto River.

Of the 289.88± acres, 35 to 40 acres are proposed for development. The remaining acreage would remain in its current state, which consists of an existing golf course (156.36 acres) and maintenance facility, and on-going club house development. The proposed new development would consist of a 90,000± square foot casino facility with 70,000± square foot gaming floor, various food and beverage establishments, conference space, spa, and four retail establishments; a 300-room, 224,000± square foot hotel; a multi-level, 2200 space parking garage; a tribal fire station; a wastewater treatment plant; and supporting facilities. The new gaming facility would replace the existing one located on reservation lands.

Access to the site would be via Lake Park Drive and Soboba Road, by way of a new access point/driveway. The proposed hotel and casino complex would be generally located at the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive and abut the existing golf course. The proposed wastewater treatment plant and fire station would be on the southern side of Lake Park Drive.

The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians is a federally recognized Indian tribe governed by a tribal council consisting of five members, under a federally approved constitution. The Tribe currently has a federally approved tribal-state gaming compact with the State of California.

Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the ADDRESSES section, during business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. 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 published in accordance with section 1501.7, 1506.6 and 1508.22 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.1.

Pursuant to 43 CFR 8364.1, the following areas within the 730-acre administrative site known as the Campbell Tract Facility, located in Anchorage, Alaska, and managed by the Bureau of Land Management Anchorage Field Office, are closed to all public and private access, use and entry: (1) Campbell Airstrip, (2) Campbell Tract Facility heliport, (3) Campbell Tract Facility aircraft ramp, and (4) Campbell Tract Facility aircraft taxiway between the airstrip and aircraft ramp. These affected areas are actively used by aircraft on an intermittent basis. This closure is necessary to ensure public safety, as well as operational management and safety.

Within the areas described above:

1. No person shall use, remain on, occupy, or access any land unless specifically authorized by the BLM.

2. All private or public use, including recreational use allowed on other portions of the Campbell Tract Facility and adjacent Municipality of Anchorage Far North Bicentennial Park lands, is prohibited.

3. All access or use by people and domestic animals, including, but not limited to, dogs and horses, is prohibited.

This closure does not apply to:

1. Any federal, state, or local government officer or member of an organized rescue or firefighting force engaged in official fire, emergency, or law enforcement activities, including associated vehicles and/or aircraft used for administrative and emergency purposes.

2. Federal, state, or local government employees while on official business of their respective agencies and engaged in official duties, including associated vehicle use for administrative and emergency purposes.

3. Persons specifically authorized by the BLM to use, remain on, or occupy lands in the area affected by this notice, including associated vehicle or domestic animal use.

4. That portion of Coyote Trail that crosses the aircraft taxiway, which will only be closed during aircraft taxi operations.

5. Emergency use of Campbell Airstrip by aircraft.

After publication of this notice, signs will be posted to inform the public that the affected areas are closed to unauthorized entry, use and/or access. In accordance with 43 CFR 8360.0-7, violation of this closure order is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.

Public comments and information submitted regarding the supplemental air quality analysis, including names, e-mail addresses, and street addresses of the respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. 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 planning area is located in Southwest Colorado in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, San Miguel counties. The plan will provide a framework to guide subsequent management decisions on approximately 1,867,800 acres of the San Juan National Forest. Of the 1,867,800 acres, BLM administers 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate. San Juan Public Land Center is currently being managed under the BLM 1985 San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the 1983 San Juan National Forest Land Management Plan.

• Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan

The current RMP was approved in 1985 and has been amended five times. Wilderness Study Areas were designated in 1980 and are currently being managed under interim guidance provided by the Interim Management Policy and Guidance for Lands under Wilderness Review until such time that Congress makes a final wilderness decision. This revised Plan discusses how those lands would be managed if Congress released them from wilderness study.

• Forest Service Land Management Plan

The current San Juan National Forest Land Management Plan was approved in 1983, with a major amendment in 1992 and twenty other amendments. This revised Plan has been prepared using the provisions of the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR part 219), as provided by the 2004 interpretative rule which clarified the transition provisions of the planning rule adopted on November 9, 2000.

The SJPLC has worked extensively with the community, interested and affected publics, and cooperating agencies in development of the DLMP/DEIS. The SJLPC conducted a broad community-based public input process. Cooperating agencies include Montezuma County, and the City of Rico, Colorado. Four alternatives are analyzed in the DLMP/DEIS.

• Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is the continuation of present management under the existing BLM and Forest Service plans. It meets the requirements of the NEPA that a no action alternative be considered. The current levels of products, services, and outputs of multiple use management from the public lands in the planning area would continue except for fluctuations due to budget. Activities such as timber harvest and oil and gas development would potentially occur over a greater percentage of the San Juan Public Lands in Alternative A than in other alternatives.

• Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, provides a mix of multiple-use activities with a primary emphasis on maintaining most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands and enhancing various forms of recreation opportunities, while maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative B is focused on balancing the ideas of maintaining “working forest and rangelands” and of retaining “core, undeveloped lands.” Uses and activities that require roads, such as timber harvesting and oil and gas development would be focused in areas that already have roads. Relatively undeveloped areas, that currently do not have roads would, for the most part, remain that way.

• Alternative C, provides a mix of multiple-use activities with primary emphasis on the undeveloped character of the San Juan. Production of goods from vegetation management would continue but may be secondary to other non-commodity objectives. Management provisions under this alternative would emphasize the undeveloped character of large blocks of contiguous land and non-motorized recreational activities to a greater degree than the other alternatives.

• Alternative D, provides a mix of multiple-use activities with a primary emphasis on the working forest and rangelands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services of the alternatives. This alternative would allow the greatest extent of resource use within the planning area, while maintaining ecosystem management principles to protect and sustain resources. Potential impacts to sensitive resource values would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis.

As required by Section 202(c)(3) of FLPMA, the DLMP/DEIS considers the designation of ACECs on BLM administered lands. Potential ACEC acres vary by alternative as shown in the table below.

Other key management concerns addressed in the Draft LMP/DEIS include:

• Balancing Management between the ideas of maintaining “Working Forest and Rangelands” and Retaining “Core Undeveloped Areas”,

• Recreation and Travel Management,

• Management of Special Areas and Unique Landscapes (including ACECs, Forest Service wilderness recommendations, and suitability of rivers for Congressional designation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System),

• Oil and Gas Leasing and Development.

Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the SJPLC, and will be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

L&W Stone Corporation mines locatable flagstone on public lands administered by the BLM's Challis Field Office in Custer County, Idaho. L&W Stone submitted an Amended Plan of Operations for its quarry under the 43 CFR part 3809 Regulations in December 2002. In 2004, the BLM completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding the Amended Plan of Operations, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and approved the project. As a result of a lawsuit that was filed objecting to that approval, the BLM was ordered by the Federal District Court to prepare an EIS for the Amended Plan of Operations.

The DEIS analyzes and discloses the effects of four alternatives, including the No Action and BLM's Preferred Alternative. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would result in the cessation of quarrying activities and the implementation of reclamation measures that would stabilize disturbed areas. Alternative B would be a continuation of the interim mining plan that was developed by L&W Stone and approved by the District Court, which has allowed L&W Stone to mine while the EIS is being prepared. Alternative C would be a continuation of mining under the Preferred Alternative from BLM's 2004 EA. Alternative D, the BLM's Preferred Alternative described in the DEIS, would be similar to Alternative C, but would allow for the expansion of quarrying operations into two new areas that contain flagstone resources.

All Alternatives are consistent with the Challis Resource Management Plan and would protect public health, protect surface and groundwater resources, meet post-mining land use requirements, and minimize view-shed impacts.

L&W Stone will be required to submit an updated Plan of Operation that would incorporate the requirements of the Alternative that is selected by the BLM Authorized Officer.

The following described public land in Clark County, Nevada has been examined and found suitable for lease and subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq ). The parcel of land is located in the southeast corner of St. Rose Parkway via the newly adopted alignment of Rancho Destino Street and Bowles Street, Henderson, Nevada, and is legally described as:

In accordance with the R&PP Act, the City of Henderson has filed an R&PP application to develop the above described land as a city fire station and public park with related facilities to meet the emergency service and park space needs of this rapidly growing area. Related facilities include a fire warehouse, outdoor vehicle storage, training facilities, parking, public restrooms, shade structures, and pedestrian trails. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plan is in case file N-81544, which is located in the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.

Cities are a common applicant under the public purposes provision of the R&PP Act. The City of Henderson is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is therefore a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act. The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The lease/conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States:

1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act, of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

The lease/conveyance will be subject to:

1. Valid existing rights;

2. A right-of-way for an underground distribution line granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors and assigns, by right-of-way N-75952, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

3. A right-of-way for roads, drainage, and municipal utilities granted to the City of Henderson, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77148, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

4. A right-of-way for fiber optic facilities granted to Nevada Power Company, its successor and assigns, by right-of-way N-78680, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

5. A right-of-way for power transmission lines granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors and assigns, by right-of-way N-78683, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

6. A right-of-way for power transmission lines granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors and assigns, by right-of-way N-78827, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

7. A right-of-way for an underground distribution line granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors and assigns, by right-of-way N-83665, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761.

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease/conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws.

Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease/convey under the R&PP Act, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for R&PP use. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

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. Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail to the Field Manager, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, will be considered properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone comments will not be considered properly filed. Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review.

In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on February 12, 2008. The lands will not be available for lease/conveyance until after the decision becomes effective.

Title: Lease of Submerged Lands for Alternative Energy Activities on the OCS.

Form(s): MMS-0001.

OMB Control Number: 1010-NEW.

Abstract: Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) amended the OCS Lands Act to add a new paragraph (p) to section 8 of the Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)) to allow the Department of the Interior, acting through the Minerals Management Service (MMS), to grant a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS for alternative energy-related uses not otherwise authorized under the Lands Act. An early step in the process entails data collection and/or technology testing in order to assess alternative energy resources and production methodologies. This lease form and its requisite information collection are needed for MMS to authorize and convey rights under limited-term leases to conduct data collection and/or technology testing activities on specific areas of the OCS.

This information collection request (ICR) addresses the form and accompanying information, which will be used by MMS and the emerging alternative energy industry as a contract instrument to bind both parties as to their rights and responsibilities under the lease.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2). No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are required to obtain or retain benefits.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 30 alternative energy respondents.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: We are requesting 7,595 hours. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens for this collection.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures: 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.

We are incorporating the potential lease form and all versions of exhibit B into this notice so respondents will be able to specifically give MMS their comments. (Please note exhibit A is not included here because it is just identification of the area of the lease provided by MMS to the respondent).

Title: Programmatic Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public Survey.

Bureau Form Number(s): None.

OMB Number: 1024-0224.

Expiration Date: 01/31/2008.

Type of Request: Extension for a currently approved collection.

Description of Need: The NPS needs information concerning park visitors and visitor services, potential park visitors, and residents of communities near parks to provide park and NPS managers with usable knowledge for improving the quality and utility of agency programs, services, and planning efforts. Since many of the NPS surveys are similar in terms of the populations being surveyed, the types of questions being asked, and research methodologies, the NPS proposed and received clearance from OMB for a program of review for NPS-sponsored public surveys (OMB #1024-0224 exp. 8/31/2001; 3-year extension granted, exp. 9/30/2004).

The program presented an alternative approach to complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act. In the eight years since the NPS received clearance for the program of expedited review, 371 public surveys have been conducted in units of the National Park System. The benefits of this program have been significant to the NPS, the Department of the Interior, OMB, NPS cooperators, and the public. Significant time and cost savings have been incurred. Expedited approval was typically granted in 60 days or less from the date the Principal Investigator first submitted the survey package for review. This is a significant reduction over the approximate 6-8 months involved in the standard OMB review process. From FY 1999 through FY 2006, the expedited review process has accounted for a cost savings to the Federal Government and PIs estimated at $237,087. The obligation to respond is voluntary.

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

Automated data collection; At the present time, there is no automated way to gather this information, since the information gathering process involves asking members of the public for their opinions on services and facilities that they used during their park visits, services and facilities they are likely to use on future park visits, and opinions regarding park management. The burden on individuals is minimized by rigorously designing public surveys to maximize the ability of the surveys to use small samples of individuals to represent large populations of the public, and by coordinating the program of surveys to maximize the ability of new surveys to build on the findings of prior surveys.

Frequency of collection: The program does not identify the frequency of collection because that number will be determined by the number of surveys submitted under the program.

Description of respondents: A sample of visitors to parks, potential visitors to parks, and residents of communities near parks.

Estimated average number of respondents: The program does not identify the number of respondents because that number will differ in each individual survey, depending on the purpose and design of each information collection.

Estimated average number of responses: The program does not identify the average number of responses because that number will differ in each individual survey. For most surveys, each respondent will be asked to respond only one time, so in those cases the number of responses will be the same as the number of respondents.

Estimated average time burden per respondent: The program does not identify the average burden hours per response because that number will differ from individual survey to individual survey, depending on the purpose and design of each information collection.

Frequency of Response: Most individual surveys will request only 1 response per respondent.

Estimated total annual reporting burden: The program identifies the requested total number of burden hours annually for all of the surveys to be conducted under its auspices to be 15,000 burden hours per year.

Meeting location and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances. If the meeting dates and location are changed, notice of the new meeting will be announced on local radio stations and published in local newspapers.

The agenda for the meeting will include the following, subject to minor adjustments:

1. Call to order.

2. Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorums.

3. Superintendent's Welcome and Introductions.

4. Review and Approve Agenda.

5. Status of Membership.

6. Member Reports.

7. Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports.

8. Setting Priorities for Advisory Council Work.

9. Discussion of Mitigation Actions for 2008.

10. Other New Business.

11. Agency and Public Comments.

12. Advisory Council Work Session.

13. Set time and place of next Advisory Council meeting.

14. Adjournment.

The Yuba Accord represents an effort on the part of the Yuba River stakeholders to find a solution to the challenges of competing interests by providing water for fisheries, developing new tools to ensure local reliable water supply, crafting a revenue stream to pay for the Yuba Accord, and providing additional water for out-of-county environmental and consumptive uses. These various objectives would be met through implementation of the Yuba Accord, which includes the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Lower Yuba River Fisheries Agreement” (Fisheries Agreement), the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Conjunctive Use Agreements” (Conjunctive Use Agreements), and the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Long-term Transfer Agreement” (Water Purchase Agreement).

• A Fisheries Agreement among YCWA, California Department of Fish and Game, and the collective non-governmental organizations, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service supporting the agreement. Under the Yuba Accord Fisheries Agreement, YCWA would revise the operation of the Yuba Project to provide instream flows in the lower Yuba River to protect and enhance fisheries and to increase downstream water supplies.

• Conjunctive Use Agreements between YCWA and water districts within Yuba County for the implementation of a comprehensive program of conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater supplies and actions to improve water use efficiencies.

• A Water Purchase Agreement among YCWA, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and Reclamation. Under this agreement, Reclamation and DWR would purchase water for the CALFED Environmental Water Account and for the CVP and SWP project uses.

The Final EIR/EIS analyzes the impacts of implementing the Yuba Accord on surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water supply, hydropower, flood control, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, special-status species, recreation, visual, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets, air quality, land use, socioeconomic, growth inducement, and environmental justice resources and conditions. Alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS include the No Action Alternative, No Project Alternative, Proposed Project/Action Alternative (Yuba Accord Alternative), and Modified Flow Alternative. In addition, the Final EIR/EIS addresses other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in conjunction with the implementation of the Yuba Accord, thus analyzing cumulative impacts. The Final EIR/EIS contains the comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS and responses to those comments.

Copies of the Final EIR/EIS are available for public review at the following locations:

• Bureau of Reclamation Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.

• Yuba County Water Agency, 1220 F Street, Marysville, CA 95901.

• Department of Water Resources, Division of Environmental Services, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

• Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

• Yuba County Library, 303 2nd Street, Marysville, CA 95901.

In May 2005, The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) received three year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to publish without change the annual planning guidance for the Workforce Information Grants to States under OMB Control Number 1205-0417. This approval is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008.

This Federal Register Notice is to request public comments and recommendations regarding the revision of the information collection.

The purpose of the information collection is to strengthen and support state workforce and economic information integration, analysis and distribution; retain a high level of state flexibility; and reduce the state reporting burden. It is ETA's goal to continue the transformation of workforce information and services to support regional economies. Therefore, ETA expects states to participate in regionally-focused economic and workforce activities; actively collaborate with economic development, business and education partners to create and utilize an array of current and real-time workforce and economic data; integrate workforce information and economic data in a manner that results in accessible, user-friendly tools and products; assist economic development project teams assess and identify asset gaps; and help develop integrated economic development strategies that unify workforce and economic development systems. The data/information collection required from each grantee includes:

(a) Submission of an annual state certification of a statement of work attesting to the planned accomplishment of expected grant deliverables signed by the Governor, or by both the Administrator of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) and the Chair of the State Workforce Investment Board (SWIB).

(b) A published detailed state economic analysis report for use by the Governor and the SWIB.

(c) Submission of an annual grant performance report signed by the Governor, or by both the Administrator of the SWA and Chair of the SWIB.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

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

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

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 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.

Notice—Proposed collection; comment request.

Type of Review: Revision.

Agency: Employment and Training Administration.

Title: Workforce Information Grants to States Application Instructions for Program Year (PY) 2008.

OMB Number: 1205-0417.

Recordkeeping: N/A.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Form: N/A.

Total Respondents: 54.

Frequency: Annual.

Total Responses: 162.

Average Time per Response: Grant Prep & Certification—63 hours; State Economic Analysis Report—434 hours; and Annual Report (on state grant performance)—80 hours;

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 31,158.

Total Burden Cost: $0.

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 (PRA-95) (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).

Posting warning signs or notices. Seven paragraphs in the Underground Construction Standard (“the Standard”), 29 CFR 1926.800, require employers to post warning signs or notices during underground construction; these paragraphs are (b)(3), (i)(3), (j)(1)(vi)(A), (m)(2)(ii), (o)(2), (q)(11), and (t)(1)(iv)(B). The warning signs and notices required by these paragraphs enable employers to effectively alert employees to the presence of hazards or potential hazards at the job site, thereby preventing employee exposure to hazards or potential hazards associated with underground construction that could cause death or serious harm.

Certification of inspection records for hoists. Paragraph (t)(3)(xxi) of the Standard requires employers to inspect and load test hoists when they install them, and at least annually thereafter; they must also inspect and load test a hoist after making any repairs or alterations to it that affect its structural integrity, and after tripping a safety device on the hoist. Employers must also prepare a certification record of each inspection and load test that includes specified information, and maintain the most recent certification record until they complete the construction project.

Establishing and maintaining a written record of the most recent inspection and load test alerts equipment mechanics to problems identified during the inspection. Prior to returning the equipment to service, employers can review the records to ensure that the mechanics performed the necessary repairs and maintenance. Accordingly, by using only equipment that is in safe working order, employers will prevent severe injury and death to the equipment operators and other employees who work near the equipment. In addition, these records provide the most efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an employer performed the required inspections and load tests, thereby assuring that the equipment is safe to operate.

Developing and maintaining records for air quality tests. Paragraph (j)(3) of the Standard mandates that employers develop records for air quality tests performed under paragraph (j), including air quality tests required by paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) through (j)(1)(iii)(A), (j)(1)(iii)(B), (j)(1)(iii)(C), (j)(1)(iii)(D), (j)(1)(iv), (j)(1)(v)(A), (j)(1)(v)(B), and (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(v). Paragraph (j) also requires that air quality records include specified information, and that employers maintain the records until the underground construction project is complete; they must also make the records available to OSHA compliance officers on request.

Maintaining records of air quality tests allows employers to document atmospheric hazards, and to ascertain the effectiveness of controls (especially ventilation) and implement additional controls if necessary. Accordingly, these requirements prevent serious injury and death to employees who work on underground construction projects. In addition, these records provide an efficient means for employees to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of an employer's exposure reduction program, and for OSHA compliance officers to determine that employers performed the required tests and implemented appropriate controls.

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 Underground Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.800). The Agency is requesting to retain its current burden hour total of 57,949 hours 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 currently approved information collection requirements.

Title: Underground Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.800).

OMB Number: 1218-0067.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 323.

Frequency of Response: Varies from recording air quality tests twice per shift to posting a warning sign or notice once every two years.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 seconds to read and record air quality test results to one hour to inspect, load test, and complete and maintain a certification record for a hoist.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) to post emergency numbers to 15 minutes (.25 hour) to develop and post load limits for floors.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 57,949.

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-2007-0085). 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 website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website'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. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).

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 (PRA-95) (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 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).

Two construction standards, “Medical Services and First Aid” (§ 1926.50), and “General Requirements for Storage” (§ 1926.250), contain posting provisions. Paragraph (f) of § 1926.50 requires employers to post emergency telephone numbers for physicians, hospitals, or ambulances at the worksite if the 911 emergency telephone service is not available; in the event an employee has a serious injury at the worksite, this posting requirement expedites emergency medical treatment of the employee. Paragraph (a)(2) of § 1926.250 specifies that employers must post the maximum safe load limits of floors located in storage areas inside buildings or other structures, unless the floors are on grade. This provision prohibits employers from overloading floors in areas used to store material and equipment in multi-story units that are under construction, thereby preventing the floors from collapsing and seriously injuring employees.

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 two construction standards, “Medical Services and First Aid” paragraph (f) of § 1926.50, and “General Requirements for Storage” paragraph (a)(2) of § 1926.250. The Agency is requesting to increase its current burden hour total from 8,901 hours to 197,819, for a total increase of 188,918 hours associated with these two Standards. 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 currently approved information collection requirements.

Title: Construction Standards on the Posting of Emergency Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits.

OMB Number: 1218-0093.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, local, or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 801,837.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Total Responses: 1,591,674.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) to post emergency numbers to 15 minutes (.25 hour) to develop and post load limits for floors.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 197,819.

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-2007-0084). 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. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).

The Humanities Panel is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (Pub. L. 92-463, 86. Stat. 770). The purpose and objective of the Humanities Panel is to advise the National Council on the Humanities and the Chairman of the NEH concerning policies, programs, and procedures of the Endowment as requested. The Humanities Panel furthermore makes recommendations on applications for financial support submitted to NEH.

Members of the Humanities Panel are selected on the basis of their subject matter expertise in a humanities discipline or on the basis of their experience in a humanities institution, or both, in order to ensure that all applications are reviewed under the highest standards of excellence in the humanities. The NEH selects panelists from a broad range of humanities disciplines (including languages, literature, history, jurisprudence, philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion, ethics, and the history, criticism, and theory of the arts). Panelists also are selected from a wide range of humanities institutions (including colleges, universities, archives, libraries, museums and historical societies). By statute, the Humanities Panel is also required to have broad geographic and culturally diverse representation.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice of the issuance of License Amendment 79 to Material License No. SNM-124, to Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (the licensee), to authorize an increase in the possession limit for uranium enriched up to 100 percent in the uranium-235 isotope at the licensee's facility in Erwin, Tennessee. The licensee's request for the proposed license amendment was previously noticed in the Federal Register on October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59117), with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing.

This license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter 1. Accordingly, this license amendment was issued on November 23, 2007, and is effective immediately.

The NRC has prepared a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) that documents the information that was reviewed and NRC's conclusion. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” details with respect to this action, including the SER and accompanying documentation included in the license amendment package, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the license amendment is ML073190567. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov .

These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.