Title: MyPyramid Tracker and Menu Planner Information Collection for Registration, Login and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment.

OMB Number: 0584-0535.

Expiration Date: June 30, 2009.

Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: MyPyramid Tracker ( http://www.mypyramidtracker.gov ) and MyPyramid Menu Planner ( http://www.mypyramidtracker.gov/planner/launchPage.aspx ) are Internet based diet and physical activity self-assessment tools. The MyPyramid Menu Planner tool is a simplified version of the Tracker. The Menu Planner simplifies both the user interface and the underlying data. It allows users to compare their food choices to MyPyramid recommendations. All users may choose to save their information by registering with a username and password. Individual can also use the MyPyramid Tracker and Menu Planner without registration.

Both MyPyramid Tracker and MyPyramid Menu Planner translate science-based guidance into practical information and promote nutrition education by increasing awareness about the quality of a person's diet. The tools allow users to input their daily food intakes and physical activity information and obtain a quick summary of overall daily diet quality, activity status, and energy balance in relation to the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Information can be tracked for up to 1 year. The tools generate motivational education messages tailored to the user's personal assessment results.

This collection will be ongoing. The information collected will only be accessible by the user. If the tools need to be improved, such as Dietary Guidelines updates or technical enhancements, formative assessment will be completed by students in cooperation with universities or colleges. Analysis of feedback from formative testing will be completed prior to the release of any updates or Web site enhancements for the general public.

Affected Public: 3,310,722 Individuals and Households, College Students—computer users.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 365 daily.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,843,466 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 30,019,978.

Estimated Number of MyPyramid Tracker Respondents: Of the 3,310,722 total respondent population and based on MyPyramid Tracker activity for the past 12 months, 2,660,704 respondents have registered, logged on and entered food and physical activity data for at least 1 day. Approximately 10% repeatedly used the Tracker on a daily basis over the past year. This would equate to approximately 22,173 repeat users visiting the site each month during one year.

The number of subjects included in formative assessments for MyPyramid Tracker will include about 9 college students, who will log in and add food intake and physical activity data for approximately 3 days.

Estimated Time Per Response: For both the MyPyramid Tracker and the Menu Planner, it will take individuals approximately 1 minute (.0167) to register for a system logon ID and password. It typically takes users 30 seconds (.0083) to log in to the system and approximately 30 minutes (.5) to complete food and physical activity data entry log for 1 day.

Estimated Number of MyPyramid Menu Planner Respondents: Of the 3,310,722 total respondent population and based on MyPyramid Menu Planner activity for the past 12 months, 650,000 respondents have registered, logged on and entered food and physical activity data for at least one day. Approximately 10% used the Tracker on a daily basis over the past year. This would equate to approximately 5,420 repeat users visiting the site each month during one year. The number of subjects included in the formative assessment is about 9 college students who will use the same log in process to create 3 days of food intake and physical activity data.

CCC hereby announces up to $23 million to provide technical and financial assistance to producers under the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative in FY 2009.

Section 1240Q of the Food Security Act, as added by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) (2008 Act), established the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative and defined the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to mean all tributaries, backwaters, and side channels, including their watersheds, draining into the Chesapeake Bay. This area includes portions of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The NRCS administers the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative and carries out program implementation using funds, facilities, or authorities of CCC. The Initiative gives special, but not exclusive, consideration to producers' applications in the following river basins: Susquehanna River, Shenandoah River, Potomac River (including North and South Potomac), and the Patuxent River.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative helps agricultural producers improve water quality and quantity, and restore, enhance, and preserve soil, air, and related resources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through the implementation of conservation practices. These conservation practices reduce soil erosion and nutrient levels in ground and surface water, improve, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat, and help address air quality and related natural resource concerns. The Initiative is carried out through the various natural resources conservation programs authorized under subtitle D, Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3830-3839bb-5. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative assistance in FY 2009 will be delivered through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). All EQIP requirements and policies will apply (see 7 CFR Part 1466).

Individuals interested in applying for Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative assistance may contact their local USDA service center in the eligible Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative states. For a listing of local service centers, consult: http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs .

Purpose and Need for Action

In June and July 2008, the Piute Fire burned approximately 37,025 acres on the Sequoia National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and private lands. The fire burned with varying intensity across a variety of plant communities(chaparral, oak woodland, Jeffrey pine, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, and desert shrub). Approximately 60% of the forested areas of the fire were burned such that 75-100% of the trees were killed and the duff and litter that protected the soil was completely consumed. In these areas, the fire resulted in the destruction of wildlife habitat for sensitive species and the loss of old forest characteristics. Near the end of the fire, two localized, heavy rainstorm events occurred within the Piute Fire area. These events resulted in high rates of soil erosion in the fire area, sedimentation of streams, and debris flows that extended into the Kern River from Erskine Creek and Clear Creek and into the Walker Basin from Thompson Creek.

The fire killed tens of thousands of trees that, if left untreated, will contribute to extremely high fuel loading over time. As these dead trees fall and fuel accumulates, future fires will be even more severe. Treating the dead and dying tree component of the landscape is the first step in restoring forest health, reducing long term fuel loading, and restoring the historic fire regime, thereby reducing the impacts of fires on the future forest and contributing to the restoration of old forest habitats. Without treatment to begin to restore the fire area, significant additional impacts to soil, water quality, heritage resources, and wildlife habitat are likely over the short and long term.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) will address: treating the dead and dying tree component of the landscape, reforesting burned conifer areas, and repairing roads to reduce sediment delivery to streams. The process of completing these treatments would reduce soil erosion by immediately increasing effective ground cover (limbs, twigs, and small boles) and maintain soil productivity for tree growth.

The proposed action would remove dead and dying trees, using ground-based logging methods, to recover the economic value of timber on about 510 acres and treated on site to reduce future fuel loading on an additional 1,750 acres. Trees posing a safety hazard to the public and forest workers would be removed along roads. Roads would be reconstructed and repaired to facilitate access to treatment areas and to improve watershed condition. Slash would be treated to provide ground cover and reduce short term fuel loading. Conifer seedlings would be planted to begin reforestation of the fire area. Protection would be applied to sensitive plant and wildlife species and heritage resources.

The proposed action is consistent with the 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision, and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement.

Other alternatives will be developed based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) No Action, and (2) the Proposed Action.

Tina Terrell, Forest Supervisor, Sequoia National Forest, 1839 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA 93257, is the responsible official. As the responsible official, she will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to remove or treat fire killed and damaged trees in the project area, to plant conifer seedlings, to undertake road improvements, or to implement fuel treatments.

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

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review.

The mission of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) is to lead the Federal economic agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth, and success in the worldwide economy. In order to effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, EDA collects certain information from applicants for, and recipients of, EDA investment assistance. Four separate information collections expiring April 30, 2009, are combined in this notice for efficiency and economy purposes and are proposed to be reinstated without change: A. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (OMB Control No. 0610-0093); B. Requirements for Approved Construction Investments (OMB Control No.0610-0096); C. Request To Amend an Investment Award and Project Service Maps (OMB Control No. 0610-0102); and D. Property Management (OMB Control No. 0610-0103).

A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is required to qualify for EDA investment assistance under its Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and most planning programs, and is a prerequisite for a region's designation by EDA as an Economic Development District ( see 13 CFR 303, 305.2, and 307.2 of EDA's regulations). This collection of information is required to ensure that the recipient is complying with EDA's CEDS requirements.

Paper report. Alternatively, EDA may approve an electronic submission.

Agency Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: EDA applicants for, and recipients of, Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and planning assistance, to include (1) Cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortia of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 522 (14 initial CEDS, 74 revised CEDS, 371 updated CEDS performance reports, 62 CEDS for applicants for EDA assistance not located in EDA-funded planning district).

Estimated Time Per Response: 480 hours for the initial CEDS for a District Organization or other planning organization funded by EDA; 160 hours for the CEDS revision required at least every 5 years from an EDA-funded District or other planning organization; 40 hours for the annual updated CEDS performance report required of EDA-funded District or other planning organizations; 40 hours per applicant for EDA Public Works or Economic Adjustment Assistance with a project deemed by EDA to ‘merit further consideration’ that is not located in an EDA-funded District.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 35,927.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

The Summary of EDA Construction Standards (commonly referred to as the “bluebook”) and the Standard Terms and Conditions for Construction Projects, as well as any special conditions incorporated into the terms and conditions at the time of award, supplement the requirements that apply to EDA-funded construction projects. The information collected is used to monitor recipients' compliance with EDA's statutory and regulatory requirements and specific terms and conditions relating to individual awards. EDA also uses the information requested to analyze and evaluate program performance.

Paper report. For some documents, EDA may approve electronic submissions.

Agency Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA construction (Public Works or Economic Adjustment) assistance, to include (1) Cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,200 (600 open construction grants x an average of 7 responses/year).

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

A recipient must submit a written request to EDA to amend an investment award and provide such information and documentation as EDA deems necessary to determine the merit of altering the terms of an award (see 13 CFR 302.7(a) of EDA's regulations). EDA may require a recipient to submit a project service map and information from which to determine whether services are provided to all segments of the region being assisted (see CFR 302.16(c) of EDA's regulations).

Paper report.

Agency Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Ad hoc submission (on an as-needed basis).

Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA assistance, to include (1) Cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortia of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes; and (7) (for training, research, and technical assistance awards only) individuals and for-profit businesses.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 600 requests for amendments to construction awards, 30 requests for amendments to non-construction awards, 2 project service maps.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours per request for an amendment to a construction award, 1 hour per request for an amendment to a non-construction award, 6 hours for a project service map.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,242.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

A recipient must request, in writing, EDA's approval to undertake an incidental use of property acquired or improved with EDA investment assistance (see 13 CFR 314.3 of EDA's regulations). This collection of information allows EDA to determine whether an incidental use of property acquired or improved with EDA investment assistance is appropriate. If a recipient wishes for EDA to release its real property or tangible personal property interests before the expiration of the property's estimated useful life, the recipient must submit a written request to EDA and disclose to EDA the intended future use of the real property or the tangible personal property for which the release is requested (see 13 CFR 314.10 of EDA's regulations). This collection of information allows EDA to determine whether to release its real property or tangible personal property interests.

Paper Report. Alternatively, EDA may approve an electronic submission.

Agency Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Ad hoc submission (only when a recipient makes a request).

Affected Public: Current or past recipients of EDA construction (Public Works or Economic Adjustment) assistance, to include (1) Cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54 incidental use requests; 96 for requests to release EDA's property interest.

Estimated Time Per Response: 45 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 113.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

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.

The Department published its preliminary results on July 17, 2008. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 41033 (July 17, 2008) (“ Preliminary Results ”).

We received comments from the Timken Company (“Petitioner”) and CPZ. Interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs on August 26, 2008, and September 5, 2008, respectively. On November 21, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of review to January 13, 2009. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review , 73 FR 70619 (November 21, 2008). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On December 9, 2008, the Department held a hearing with interested parties regarding issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review,” dated January 13, 2009, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn . The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

The POR is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007.

Imports covered by this order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made certain changes in the margin calculations. For the final results, the Department has made the following changes:

The PRC-wide rate has also changed for the final results, from 60.95 percent to 92.84 percent. This rate represents the calculated rate for CPZ in these final results and is the highest calculated rate determined in the instant or any previous segment of this proceeding. We will apply the new PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent to the PRC-wide entity (including Yantai Timken Company Limited (“Yantai Timken”)) for the final results. See “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” and “Selection of the PRC-Wide Rate” sections below. Corroboration of the new PRC-wide rate is not required because this rate is based on, and calculated from, information submitted by CPZ in the course of this administrative review, i.e., it is not secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

In the Preliminary Results , the Department found that Yantai Timken did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate, and thus is deemed to be part of the PRC-wide entity. See Preliminary Results at 73 FR 41035. As the Department found that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Yantai Timken, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information and thereby impeded the Department's proceeding, the Department assigned the PRC-wide entity a rate based on adverse facts available (“AFA”) pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Act. See Id . The Department did not receive any comments regarding its preliminary application of AFA to the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, for these final results, the Department has not altered its analysis or its decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity.

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) the final determination; (3) a previous administrative review; or (4) other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. See the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994), at 870. For this review, we have used the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding, i.e. , the final calculated rate for CPZ in this administrative review. See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 37715 (July 11, 2007). Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of a review as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. As we did not rely upon secondary information, no corroboration was required under section 776(c) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and section 776(c) of the Act.

We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the POR:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e. , less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rates shown for those companies; 2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent; and 4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

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

The National Ocean Service (NOS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), has completed the definition and implementation of GUVD 04. GUVD 04 supersedes all previously published height systems determined by all Federal surveying and mapping agencies, with the exception of those specifically related to tidal datums and/or military applications. GUVD 04 heights are the result of a mathematical least squares general adjustment of the vertical control portion of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) and are derived from approximately 132 km of 1st-Order, Class II geodetic leveling observations undertaken specifically for this project. The basis for all GUVD 04 heights is Mean Sea Level, for the National Tidal Datum Epoch 1983-2001, as determined by the NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), and published for the National Water Levels Observation Network (NWLON) bench mark number 163 0000 TIDAL 4 (2.170 meters), located in Apra Harbor.

GUVD 04 height information for individual geodetic control monuments is available in digital form, from the NGS Web site: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl .

The National Ocean Service (NOS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), has completed the definition and implementation of NMVD 03. NMVD 03 supersedes all previously published height systems determined by other Federal surveying and mapping agencies on Rota, Saipan and Tinian, with the exception of those specifically related to tidal datums and/or military applications. NMVD 03 heights are the result of a mathematical least squares general adjustment of the vertical control portion of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) and are derived from approximately 105 km of 1st-Oder, Class II geodetic leveling observations (15 km on Rota, 60 km on Saipan and 15 km on Tinian) undertaken specifically for this project. The basis for all NMVD 03 heights is Mean Sea Level, for the epoch 1983-2001, as determined by the NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), and published for the National Water Levels Observation Network (NWLON) bench mark number 163 3227 UH-2C (1.657 meters), located in Tanapag Harbor.

NMVD 03 height information for individual geodetic control monuments is available in digital form, from the NGS Web site: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl .

The National Ocean Service (NOS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), has completed the definition and implementation of ASVD 02. ASVD 02 supersedes all previously published height systems determined by all Federal surveying and mapping agencies, with the exception of those specifically related to tidal datums and/or military applications for Tutuila. At this time, ASVD 02 does not apply to any of the other islands of American Samoa. ASVD 02 heights are the result of a mathematical least squares general adjustment of the vertical control portion of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) and includes 54 km of 1st-Order, Class II geodetic leveling observations undertaken specifically for this project. The basis for all ASVD 02 heights is Mean Sea Level, for the epoch 1983-2001, as determined by the NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), and published for the National Water Levels Observation Network (NWLON) bench mark number177 0000 S (1.364 meters), located in Pago Pago.

ASVD 02 height information for individual geodetic control monuments is available in digital form, from the NGS Web site: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl .

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

This notice is relevant to federally threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), endangered Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon, threatened California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ), threatened Northern California (NC) steelhead ( O. mykiss ), threatened CCC steelhead, threatened South-Central California Coast (S-CCC) steelhead, and endangered Southern California (SC) steelhead.

A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research permit (10093 and 10094) was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2008 (73 FR 2900). Permits 10093 and 10094 were issued to CDFG Region 1 and Region 3 on September 23, 2008.

Permits 10093 and 10094 authorizes CDFG Region 1 and Region 3; respectively, intentional non-lethal take, and unintentional lethal take of the following ESA-listed salmonids: juvenile SONCC coho salmon, CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, NC steelhead, CCC steelhead, S-CCC steelhead, and SC steelhead; adult CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, NC steelhead, CCC steelhead, and S-CCC steelhead; and adult carcasses of SONCC coho salmon, CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, NC steelhead, CCC steelhead, and S-CCC steelhead. The take activities associated with juvenile and adult ESA-listed salmonid studies include; capture (backpack electrofishing, beach seine, rotary screw trap, fish ladder trap, resistance board weir, flume-type-raceway/finger-weir-trap, hook and line and funnel/fyke trap), anesthetizing (optional), handling (identify, measure, and weigh), tissue sampling (fin-clip), scale sampling, marking (fin-clips and/or opercular-hole-punch), tagging (PIT and/or Floy tags) and release of fish. Take activities associated with adult ESA-listed salmonid carcass studies include; handling (identify, measure, and count), marking (opercular-hole-punch and/or cut-in-half), tagging (hog-ring), retaining (head; adipose clipped fish), scale sampling, tissue sampling (fin-clip), and release of fish.

Permits 10093 and 10094 authorizes unintentional lethal take of juvenile SONCC coho salmon, CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, NC steelhead, CCC steelhead, S-CCC steelhead, and SC steelhead not to exceed 2.5 percent of fish captured. Permits 10093 and 10094 authorizes unintentional lethal take of adult CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, NC steelhead, CCC steelhead, and S-CCC steelhead not to exceed 2 percent of fish captured.

Permits 10093 and 10094 are for research to be conducted in streams and estuaries throughout the State of California. The purpose of the research is to support conservation and recovery planning of ESA-listed salmonids, address information needs identified by CDFG Region 1 and Region 3, and contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge pertaining to ESA-listed salmonids. Permits 10093 and 10094 expire on December 31, 2013.

NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the BSAI (FMP), which the Council prepared under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at § 600.745(b) and § 679.6 allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to authorize, for limited experimental purposes, fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations.

The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under the authority of the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).

NMFS has received an application for an EFP from the North Pacific Fisheries Foundation (NPFF). Under this EFP, the NPFF would evaluate methods for projecting survival of released halibut, which could improve NMFS's estimates of halibut mortality in the non-pelagic trawl gear fishery for flatfish and identify techniques for minimizing mortality of this species in trawl fisheries.

Regulations implemented by the IPHC allow Pacific halibut to be commercially harvested by the directed North Pacific longline fishery only. Halibut caught incidentally in other fisheries, such as non-pelagic trawl fisheries, must be recorded and returned to the ocean as soon as possible. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council establishes a seasonal maximum biomass of halibut bycatch adjusted for the estimated halibut discard mortality factor for each non-halibut directed fishery. Fisheries close when they reach their seasonal mortality cap even if the catch of the target species is less than the seasonal quota for the directed fishery. In the case of Bering Sea flatfish fisheries, seasons have been cut short by the halibut bycatch cap before the quotas have been reached. Accurately accounting for halibut in NMFS estimates of mortality and assuring that each halibut returned to the sea has the highest possible chance of survival are therefore high priorities for the IPHC's, the Council's, and NMFS's management goals for both halibut and groundfish.

Before halibut are discarded at-sea, the catch must first be estimated by at-sea observers. In order to credibly account for halibut catch and to ensure that the catch and discard of halibut is observed, NMFS prohibits any removal of halibut from a cod end, bin, or conveyance system prior to being observed and enumerated by an at-sea observer.

With the implementation of Amendment 80 to the FMP on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), allocation of halibut was modified for certain vessels, but halibut bycatch continued to limit fishing in some fisheries. The Amendment 80 sector received an initial allocation of 2,525 mt of halibut bycatch mortality, but that allocation will decrease by 50 mt per year until it reaches 2,325 mt in 2012 and subsequent years. In certain years, this amount is less than the sector's historic catch; therefore, finding ways to accurately estimate halibut survival is important for this sector.

This application for an EFP from NPFF proposes to study two methods for predicting halibut survival. It would allow researchers onboard a catcher processor vessel to collect approximately 100 halibut caught with non-pelagic trawl gear and evaluate a reflex action mortality predictor (RAMP) for predicting delayed mortality in individual trawl-caught halibut. The RAMP method would be combined with and compared to the existing IPHC halibut mortality predictor currently used by observers. To assess and compare these two methods, halibut would be held in live tanks on a vessel and assessed by each method. The collection and holding of halibut in this manner requires an exemption from regulations that prohibit retention of halibut by trawl gear, and requiring that all halibut caught with this gear be released as soon as possible (§ 679.7(a)(12), and § 679.21(b)(2)(ii)).

This EFP would apply for the period of time required to complete the experiment during 2009, in areas open to directed fishing for flatfish. It would be of limited scope and duration and would not be expected to change the nature or duration of the groundfish fishery, fishing practices or gear used by this vessel, or the amount or species of fish caught.

The activities that would be conducted under this EFP are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment as detailed in the categorical exclusion issued for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the proposal warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council will consider the EFP application during its February 4-10, 2009, meeting, which will be held at the Renaissance Hotel in Seattle, Washington. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.

Interested persons may comment on the application at the February 2009 Council meeting during public testimony. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/council.htm . Copies of the application and categorical exclusion are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

United States of America

Consumer Product Safety Commission

In the Matter of Lasko Products Inc., a corporation

1. This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the staff (“staff”) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) and Lasko Products Inc. (“Lasko”), a corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). This Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) resolve the staffs allegations set forth below.

2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089.

3. Lasko is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal corporate office located in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

4. At all times relevant herein, Lasko designed, manufactured and sold portable electric fans, including those that are the subject of the Agreement and Order.

5. Between 1999 and 2001, Lasko manufactured and distributed approximately 5.6 million of the subject portable electric fans under the following brand names and model numbers: Lasko 2135, 3300, 3400, 3410, 3510, 3515, 3521,3550, 3700, 3723, 3733, 3750, 3800; Galaxy 3733; General Electric 106600, 106620, 106630; and Air King 9500, and 9515, (collectively, “fans” or “products”). The fans were sold from 2000 through 2004, by distributors and in retail stores nationwide, for between $10 and $25.

6. The fans are “consumer product(s)” and, at all times relevant herein, Lasko was a “manufacturer” of “consumer product(s),” which were “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(3), (5), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(3), (5), (8), and (11).

7. The fans are defective because it is possible for an internal short to occur in the motor windings of some of the fans, which may cause the fans to overheat, smoke and/or catch fire, thereby presenting a substantial product hazard to consumers.

8. Between November 2002 and September 2005, Lasko received approximately forty two (42) reports of incidents involving certain fans overheating, smoking, melting or catching fire, which caused property damage and at least nine (9) personal injuries. Lasko filed its Initial Report on July 13, 2005 and filed its Full Report on September 2, 2005. The fans were recalled on February 8, 2006.

9. Although Lasko had obtained sufficient information to reasonably support the conclusion that the fans contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, it failed to immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4). In failing to do so, Lasko “knowingly” violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).

10. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Lasko is subject to civil penalties for its failure to report as required under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).

11. In the spring and early summer of 2005, Lasko received notice of a number of claims and/or received certain products for inspection that indicated a potential pattern of failure that had not been seen prior to that time.

12. The number and the nature of incidents or claims reported to Lasko prior to the summer of 2005 was insufficient to indicate any specific failure mode, pattern of failure or to reasonably support the conclusion that the fans contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.

13. Lasko immediately commenced an investigation and provided the Commission with an Initial Report, in a timely manner, on July 13, 2005.

14. Lasko specifically denies that it failed to immediately inform the Commission of any defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4). Lasko further denies that it in any way or “knowingly” violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).

15. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Lasko.

16. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Lasko agrees to pay a civil penalty of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) within twenty (20) calendar days of receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury and mailed to Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.

17. The parties enter the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Lasko or a determination by the Commission that Lasko violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.

18. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written requests not to accept the Agreement within 15 calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date it is published in the Federal Register , in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f).

19. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Lasko knowingly, voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following: (i) An administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission as to whether Lasko failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

20. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and Order.

21. The Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon Lasko and each of its successors and assigns.

22. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, and a violation of the Order may subject those referenced in paragraph 21 above to appropriate legal action.

23. This Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations made apart from those contained in the Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or to contradict their terms.

24. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such amendment, modification, alteration, or waiver is sought to be enforced.

25. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Lasko agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and Order.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Lasko Products Inc. (“Lasko”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Lasko, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order are in the public interest, it is

Ordered that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted and it is

Further ordered that Lasko shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00), within twenty (20) calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Lasko to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Lasko at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b).

Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 9th day of January 2009.

In notice document E9-975 beginning on page 2998 in the issue of Friday, January 16, 2008, the docket number should read as set forth above.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service's system of record notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

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

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service's record system notices for record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552(a)), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 13, 2009, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated December 12, 2000, 65 FR 239.

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

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

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

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 12, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 13, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 13, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, `Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on January 13, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

1. The permit applicant, Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA), is proposing to construct a 460-mile pipeline with a 20- to 24-inch hard pipe bidirectional line from Beluga, AK to Delta Junction, AK and a 10- to 15-inch soft line from Delta Junction to North Pole/Fairbanks, AK to deliver natural gas from the Beluga gas fields to interior Alaska. The proposed route and adjacent service area would begin in Beluga, AK, continuing through the community of Palmer, AK then easterly along the Glenn Highway, with a deviation northwardly through Chitna Pass to Glennallen, AK. It would then turn north following the Richardson Highway paralleling the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) route to the city of Delta Junction, AK. The pipe would then turn west continuing along the TAPS route to a connection point near the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) power plant in North Pole, AK. The pipeline would be buried throughout the corridor. Three compressor stations are proposed at Palmer, Glennallen, and North Pole, AK.

2. The right of way for the proposed pipeline corridor is owned by numerous entities. The largest land owners along the proposed route include the Bureau of Land Management, the Military (Fort Greely, Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Force Base), Native Allotments/Corporations, private land owners and the State of Alaska.

3. Additional alternatives to the applicant's proposal include four routing segments variations and one design alternative (A map depicting the location of each alternate route is available at the EIS Web site):

a. Route Alternative 1: Utilization of a Chugach Electric easement from Beluga, AK across the Susitna River to Palmer, AK rather than the ENSTAR pipeline route. This route would deviate northeastwardly from the proposed route west of the Susitna River and would realign with the proposed route south of Knik, AK.

b. Route Alternative 2: Employ full utilization of the Glenn Highway route from Sutton, AK to Eureka, AK rather than deviating through Chitna Pass north of Chickaloon, AK. This route would deviate from the proposed route at Sutton, AK and follow the Glenn Highway, realigning with the proposed route at approximately milepost 128 of the Glenn Highway, southwest of Nelchina, AK.

c. Route Alternative 3: Utilization of the TAPS corridor from Delta Junction, AK to North Pole, AK as an alternate route to bring gas directly to the GVEA power plant.

d. Route Alternative 4: Utilization of the Parks Highway route from Fairbanks, AK to Wasilla, AK rather that use of the Glenn Highway route.

e. Design Alternative 1: Use of 4-inch steel tubing for the segment from Delta Junction, AK to North Pole, AK rather than plastic tubing.

4. Scoping: a. The Corps invites full public participation to promote open communication on the issues surrounding the proposal. All Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, and other persons or organizations that have an interest are urged to participate in the NEPA scoping process. These meetings will be held to receive public input on the proposed purpose and need of the project, to identify significant issues and to discuss proposed alternatives. The scoping process will help to further explain the purpose and need plus the alternatives to be reviewed in the DEIS. The project scoping period will begin on February 1, 2009 and end on March 15, 2009.

b. The DEIS will analyze the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts to the affected areas. The following major issues will be analyzed in depth in the DEIS: The natural gas delivery system construction and operation and its affect upon the surrounding communities; essential fish habitat; threatened and endangered species including critical habitat; cultural resources; socioeconomics; alternatives; secondary and cumulative impacts.

c. The Corps will serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation of the DEIS. The Bureau of Land Management is participating as a cooperating agency.

5. The scoping meetings are tentatively planned for the following dates and locations and each meeting with include an open-house from 5 p.m.-6 p.m. and a project presentation and questions and answer session from 6 p.m.-8 p.m. (Please consult the above referenced Web site for any changes and additional information including the scoping summary):

a. Anchorage: March 4, 2009 at Sheraton Hotel (401 East 6th Avenue, Anchorage, AK).

b. Wasilla: March 5, 2009 at Central Mat-Su Public Safety Building (101 West Swanson Drive, Wasilla).

c. Glennallen: February 24, 2009 at Tazlina Village Hall (Mile 110.5 Richardson Highway, Glennallen, AK).

d. Delta Junction: February 25, 2009 at Delta Junction Community Center (2288 Deborah Street, Delta Junction, AK).

e. Fairbanks/North Pole: February 26, 2009 Wedgewood Resort (212 Wedgewood Drive, Fairbanks, AK).

6. It is anticipated that the DEIS will be available for public review in the fall of 2009.

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 Leader, 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: New Collection.

Title: College.gov Career Tools and College Coaches.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 400.

 Burden Hours: 133.

Abstract: The purpose for including the Career Tool and I'm Going Guide features is to provide students with real world, relatable examples of current college students who were able to overcome obstacles in order to reach a postsecondary education. This feature builds on College.gov's objective to provide students with the inspiration and hopes to see that a college education is possible for everyone (especially targeting underrepresented populations). In the I'm Going Guide feature, students can select current college students to view their profiles, see why and how they went to college, and read the college student's advice for high school students. Each student's profile would include their first name, photo, major and brief description about the student, such as where they are studying, and tips for other students. For the Career Tool feature, the site would show 24 different college grads at a time, but the goal would be to have about 75 that we could “shuffle” on the tool's display. Each college grad's profile would provide their first name, major, career field, and advice for students interested in their field of study. This information clearance will enable the Department to college grad profiles for including in the Career Tool and I'm Going Guide.

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 3929. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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.

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: Reinstatement.

Title: The Application for Grants Under the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program.

Frequency: Once every four (4) years.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Application Package requests information from applicants during the competitive phase. The information collected is reviewed by non-federal reviewers to determine institutions with the greatest population of students that meet the eligibility criteria for distribution of funds under the program to assist them with child care needs as they move through their educational progression.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

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 3928. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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.

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on January 8, 2009 stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan, as supplemented by CARB on February 1, 2008, for the reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone years of 2011, 2014, 2017 are adequate. The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm . The adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

Our letter dated January 8, 2009 also states that budgets for 2008, 2020, and 2023 are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The San Joaquin Valley 8-hour ozone plan does not show reasonable further progress for the year 2008. As a result, one of the transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria is not met (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)), and thus, the 2008 budget is inadequate. The State has included additional on-road mobile source emissions reductions in the budgets for 2020 and 2023 from the 2007 State Strategy for the California SIP. The adequate budgets include no such reductions but rather reflect emissions reductions from CARB rules that have already been adopted. EPA has determined that the 2020 and 2023 budgets are inadequate because they include new emission reductions that do not result from specific or enforceable control measures. As a result, three of the transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria are not met (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these budgets. The inadequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site on April 18, 2008. We received comments in response to the adequacy review posting. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's transportation conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm .

Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40004, 40038), and we used the information in these resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 30, 2008 (73 FR 31088), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0371, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1927.

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

Title: NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (Renewal)

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2027.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0516.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2009. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM) were proposed on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 41729) and promulgated on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18062).

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 90 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 11.

Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,303.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,004,834, which includes: labor costs of $1,002,163, annualized capital/startup costs of $997, and $1,674 in O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Apparent differences of less than 500 hours are attributable to rounding; in previous years, hours were rounded to the nearest thousand; this ICR presents more exact figures.

This is a summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08-2819, adopted and released on December 31, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. On October 10, 2008, the Media Bureau issued a Memorandum Opinion and Hearing Designation Order (“HDO”) in the above captioned matter. 73 FR 65312, November 3, 2008. The HDO, among other things, referred certain program carriage disputes, including the above-captioned matter, to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to resolve factual disputes as to whether the defendant cable operators had discriminated against the complainant video programmers or required a financial interest in the complainant video programmer's programming as a condition for carriage in violation of the Commission's program carriage rules. 73 FR 65312, 65322, 65323, November 3, 2008. The HDO ordered the ALJ to make and return a recommended decision to the Commission within 60 days of the release date of the HDO, i.e. , by December 9, 2008. Unfortunately, the ALJ has not issued a recommended decision by the deadline but, instead, has set a date to begin a hearing more than three months past the HDO's deadline without indicating when a recommended decision will be released. Herring Broadcasting, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. et al. , Order, MB Docket No. 08-214, FCC 08M-50 (rel. Dec. 2, 2008).

2. On December 24, 2008, the Media Bureau issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “ Dec. 24th MO&O ”) finding that the ALJ exceeded his authority by setting a hearing date beyond the HDO's 60-day deadline for issuing a recommended decision. In the Matter of Herring Broadcasting Inc., d/b/a WealthTV, et al. , Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08-2805, MB Docket 08-214 (rel. Dec. 24, 2008), at ¶¶ 2, 14-16 (“ Dec. 24th MO& O”). In the Dec. 24th MO&O, the Media Bureau stated that the ALJ's limited authority to consider these matters extended through December 9, 2008. See id. The Media Bureau noted that this deadline has passed, and the ALJ's delegated authority over these hearing matters has thus expired under the terms of the HDO. See id. While the above-captioned matter was not included in the caption of the Dec. 24th MO&O, NFL Enterprises, LLC has filed a Motion for Clarification arguing that the logic and reasoning of that decision applies equally to the above-captioned matter. See NFL Enterprises LLC, Motion for Clarification, MB Docket No. 08-214, File No. CSR-7876-P (filed Dec. 29, 2008). We agree and therefore the Media Bureau will proceed to resolve the above-captioned program carriage dispute without the benefit of a recommended decision from the ALJ.

3. Accordingly, It is ordered, that the Hearing Designation Order for the above-captioned matter has Expired, the proceeding set for hearing before the Administrative Law Judge is Terminated, and the Media Bureau will proceed to resolve the above-captioned program carriage dispute.

4. It is further ordered that all parties to the above-captioned proceeding will be served with a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order by e-mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested.

5. It is further ordered that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order or a summary thereof Shall Be Published in the Federal Register .

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in RM No. 11510, DA 09-5, released on January 5, 2009. The full text of the Public Notice is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com ; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the Public Notice also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 08-165. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. On October 8, 2008, CTIA filed a Petition for Rulemaking, seeking to transition part 22 cellular licensing to a geographic market area-based license system. 1 To effectuate this transition, CTIA proposes that the Commission re-issue all cellular licenses to “incumbents” on a Cellular Market Area (“CMA”) basis in place of their existing Cellular Geographic Service Area licenses, subject to two carve outs. First, cellular licensees in a CMA providing service using unserved area licenses would consult with the CMA license holder “to determine each license's service area boundaries following the transition to digital service.” Second “incumbent” cellular licensees providing service beyond the boundaries of their CMAs “would consult with the CMA licensee of the affected market to establish service area boundaries” and the “incumbent's” license would be modified to reflect these boundaries. In either instance, if the parties cannot reach agreement, CTIA proposes that the matter be referred to the Commission for adjudication. The Commission seeks comment on CTIA's Petition.

2. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings , 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs / or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

• People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Joyce Jones, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 6413, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to joyce.jones@fcc.gov. Parties must also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

Responses shall include: A description of the VNT including the manufacturer, schedule of availability of the VNT and filters for evaluation, and a statement of the terms under which the VNT will be made available for evaluation. Shipping and handling costs (including insurance) to ship the VNTs to NIOSH and for NIOSH to return the VNTs to the submitter will be the responsibility of the submitter. NIOSH reserves the right to decide which VNT submissions will be evaluated based on compliance with the specifications described above. NIOSH also reserves the right not to proceed in this manner.

Contact Person for Technical Information: Susan Reutman, Ph.D., telephone (513) 533-8286, or e-mail SReutman@cdc.gov.

In the Federal Register of July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41361), FDA announced the availability of draft CPG Sec. 540.370—Fish and Fishery Products—Decomposition and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments. The agency received no comments on the draft CPG but on its own initiative made a few editorial changes for clarification purposes. The CPG provides guidance for FDA staff on decomposition in fish and fishery products. The CPG also contains information that may be useful to the regulated industry and to the public.

FDA is issuing this CPG as a level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The CPG represents the agency's current thinking on FDA's direct reference enforcement criteria related to decomposition in fish and fishery products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov .

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the CPG at http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/default.htm .

Seventeen programs in the LEND cohort are expected to compete in FY 2009. These programs presently have active LEND grants: University of Iowa, Johns Hopkins University, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of South Dakota, University of Vermont, Virginia Commonwealth University, West Virginia University, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Ohio State University, Vanderbilt University, Children's Research Institute, Indiana University, University of Oklahoma.

Amount of Individual Supplemental Awards: Note: These funding levels are expected to continue in FYs 2009 and 2010.

Current Project Periods: 7/1/04 through 6/30/09.

Period of Supplemental Funding: 7/1/09 through 6/30/11.

CFDA Number: 93.110.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the Draft PEIS on the Future of the Loran-C Program. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2007-28460), and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Docket Management Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

Viewing the comments and Draft PEIS: To view the comments and the Draft PEIS, go to http://www.regulations.gov , select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the screen, insert USCG-2007-28460 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and then click on the item in the Docket ID column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Draft PEIS is also available at the project Web site, http://www.uscg-e2m.com/LoranPEIS/ .

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Loran is a radionavigation system first developed during World War II and operated by the USCG. The current system (Loran-C) is a low frequency hyperbolic radionavigation system approved for use in the Coastal Confluence Zone (CCZ) and as a supplemental air navigation aid. Loran-C provides navigation, location, and timing services for both civil and military air, land, and marine users in the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Alaska. The USCG operates 18 CONUS Loran Stations, 6 Alaska Loran Stations, and 24 monitoring sites.

The Draft PEIS on the Future of the Loran-C Program is a program-level document designed to provide the USCG with high-level analysis of the potential impacts on the human environment from the alternatives for the future of the Loran-C Program. The Draft PEIS evaluates the following five alternatives on the future of the USCG Loran-C Program:

(1) No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative refers to the current, existing conditions without implementation of the Proposed Action.

(2) Decommission the USCG Loran-C Program and Terminate the North American Loran-C Signal.

(3) Automate, Secure, and Unstaff Loran-C Stations.

(4) Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency.

(5) Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency to Deploy an eLoran system.

The preferred alternatives include Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency; or Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency to Deploy an eLoran system. It is important to note that this draft PEIS does not obligate the Coast Guard, DHS, or any other entity to undertake any specific course of action with respect to Loran.

We are requesting your comments on the environmental concerns that you may have related to the Draft PEIS. This includes suggested analyses and methodologies for use in the Draft PEIS or possible sources of data for information not included in the Draft PEIS. Your comments will be considered in preparing the final PEIS.

Section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13604) imposed on HUD the obligation to require housing providers participating in federally assisted housing to provide any individual or family applying for occupancy in HUD-assisted housing with the option to include in the application for occupancy the name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information of a family member, friend, or person associated with a social, health, advocacy, or similar organization. The federally assisted housing programs covered by this notice are listed in the matrix that accompanies this notice.

The objective of providing such information, if the information is provided, and if the applicant becomes a tenant, is to facilitate contact by the housing provider with the person or organization identified by the tenant, to assist in providing any delivery of services or special care to the tenant and assist with resolving any tenancy issues arising during the tenancy of such tenant. This supplemental application information is to be maintained by the housing provider and maintained as confidential information.

While this statutory requirement to notify applicants for occupancy in HUD-assisted housing of the option of providing such information is a long-standing one, HUD has discovered that applicants are not being consistently notified of the option to provide this information. Accordingly, HUD has determined that the best way to ensure that providers of federally assisted housing comply with this requirement is to require compliance through utilization of a standard form for housing providers to give to each applicant for occupancy that notifies them of their option to provide the information specified in section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, and provides for the information to be submitted. The standard form that HUD proposes for housing providers to use accompanies this notice.

To facilitate compliance with section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, HUD has designed a form that housing providers are required to provide to each applicant for occupancy that (1) notifies an applicant of the applicant's option to provide the information specified in section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, (2) provides for the information to be submitted, and (3) advises of the confidentiality of the information included on the form. This notice provides a listing and description of that information, as well as a sample document (that is a sample of the document in which required information may be presented to HUD), and HUD is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and is seeking review as allowed by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

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

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

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title of Proposal: Supplemental and Optional Contact Information for HUD-Assisted Housing Occupants.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: Pending.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD is proposing this information collection to ensure compliance with section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as discussed in section I of this notice.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-Form 92006 (SAFAH).

Frequency of Submission: Once with each application for occupancy in a HUD-assisted housing project, at the applicant's option.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response.

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

Applicant Name:

Mailing Address:

Telephone No:

Optional Contact Person or Organization: You have the right by law to include, at your option and as part of your application for housing, the name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information of a family member, friend, or social, health, advocacy, or other organization. If you choose to exercise this option, please include the relevant information on this form.

Name of Additional Contact Person or Organization:

Relationship, if any, if individual is identified:

Address:

Telephone No:

E-mail address (if applicable) or other contact information:

Commitment of Housing Provider: If the applicant becomes a tenant of the federally assisted housing for which the applicant is providing, the information on this form shall be maintained during the period of the tenant's occupancy in federally assisted housing for the purpose of facilitating contact with such additional contact person or organization to assist in providing any services or special care for the tenant and to assist in resolving any relevant tenancy issues arising during the tenancy of such tenant.

Confidentiality Statement: The information provided on this form is confidential information and will not be disclosed to anyone else except as permitted by the applicant or applicable law.

Legal Notification: The option of an applicant to provide information regarding an additional contact person or organization is required to be offered to each applicant for federally assisted housing by section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-55, approved October 28, 1992). The housing provider accepting the applicant's application for assistance does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, color, creed, religion, handicap, national origin, family composition or familial status in admission to, or participation in its federally assisted housing programs.

The information collection requirements contained in this form were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The public reporting burden is estimated at 15 minutes per response. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC69437 effective August 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC66236 effective September 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC69412 effective August 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW174048 effective August 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.

This survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The lands we surveyed are:

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 33, and the reestablishment of the record meander lines in section 33, in Township 43 North, Range 27 West, of the Fourth Principal Meridian, in the State of Minnesota, and was accepted January 9, 2009. We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.