On July 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea, covering the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than January 31, 2009.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

The Department requires additional time to review and analyze the respondent's sales and cost information and to issue supplemental questionnaires. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the previously established time limit ( i.e. , by January 31, 2009). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of these preliminary results by 120 days to no later than May 31, 2009, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. As May 31, 2009 falls on a Sunday, our preliminary results will be issued no later than June 1, 2009, the next business day. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2003. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003). On August 8, 2008, and August 26, 2008, we received timely requests for new shipper reviews from Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd. ( “SAMEFICO”) and Cadovimex II Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (“Cadovimex II”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) and 351.214(d)(2). On October 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of initiation of new shipper reviews of certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam covering the period of August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews , 73 FR 57058, (October 1, 2008). The preliminary results are currently due no later than March 24, 2009.

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the day on which the review was initiated. See also 19 CFR 351.214 (i)(1). The Act further provides that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. See also 19 CFR 351.214 (i)(2).

The Department determines that these new shipper reviews involve extraordinarily complicated methodological issues such as the examination of importer information and the evaluation of the bona fide nature of each company's sales. In addition, the Department needs additional time to evaluate the complicated multiple stages of production. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for these preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than July 22, 2009. The final results continue to be due 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on April 8, 1999 to C-Shore International.

A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce annual reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, Section 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The annual report is due within 45 days after the anniversary date of the issuance of the Certificate of Review (Sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete annual report may be the basis for revocation (Sections 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On March 29, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce sent to C-Shore International a letter containing annual report questions, stating that its annual report was due on May 23, 2008. Reminders were sent on the following dates:

August 22, 2008, October 3, 2008, and December 15, 2008. The Secretary has received no written response from C-Shore International to any of these letters. On December 15, 2008, and in accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by certified mail to notify C-Shore International, that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has received no response from C-Shore International. Pursuant to Section 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of C-Shore International, to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to C-Shore International for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated January 21, 2009, to notify C-Shore International of this final determination.

The revocation is effective thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice (325.10(c)(4) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(c)). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register “(15 CFR 325.11 of the Regulations).”

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) established a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on January 16, 2009, requesting a panel review of the determination and order described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 16, 2009);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 2, 2009); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

The NOAA Commissioned Corps is the uniformed component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a bureau of the Department of Commerce. Officers serve under Senate-confirmed appointments and Presidential commissions (33 U.S.C., Chapter 17, Subchapter 1, Sections 853 and 854). The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who are dedicated to the service of their country and optimization of NOAA's missions to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation. NOAA Corps officers serve in assignments throughout NOAA, as well as in each of NOAA's Line Offices (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Office of Program, Planning, and Integration). Persons wishing to be considered for a NOAA Corps Commission must submit a complete application package, including NOAA Form 56-42, three letters of recommendation, and official transcripts. A personal interview must also be conducted. Eligibility requirements include a bachelor's degree in science, engineering, or another discipline related to NOAA's missions, excellent health, normal color vision with uncorrected visual acuity no worse than 20/400 in each eye (correctable to 20/20), and ability to complete 20 years of active duty service prior to their 62nd birthday.

Respondents must submit paper forms via mail in postage-paid envelopes.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0047.

Form Number: NOAA Forms 56-42, 56-42A, and 56-42D.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 130.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 390.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,024.

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.

John N. Cobb , decommissioned August 13, 2008, had been an active research vessel for 58 years. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that federal properties meeting historical criteria are to be recognized as historical assets. As a result of John N. Cobb's length of service, significant contributions to the community and historic architectural design, the vessel has been determined eligible and is scheduled to make the National Register of Historic Places spring of 2009. Upon being determined eligible, the vessel became subject to rules and regulations described in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties-The Section 106 Process.

Seattle Central Community College: Seattle Maritime Academy is an eligible recipient of John N. Cobb under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology and Innovation Act of 1980 and consequently submitted a request for the vessel to the Commanding Officer, Marine Operations Center-Pacific. This request includes a strategy for continued use and preservations of the vessel. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is confident the Academy possesses the necessary resources to continue the preservation effort. Seattle Maritime Academy is a reputable organization and will likely serve John N. Cobb well in future sea going years. Prior to transferring the vessel to Seattle Maritime Academy, NOAA, the Washington State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will establish a memorandum of agreement including preservation covenants.

Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice on a continuing basis to the Director, Office of Science of the Department of Energy, on the many complex scientific and technical issues that arise in the development and implementation of the Biological and Environmental Research Program.

• Report from the Office of Science.

• Report from the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.

• Presentation of Workshop Reports.

• News from the Biological Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences Divisions.

• Update on Joint Genome Institute Strategic Planning.

• Report on the BER Climate Sciences Strategic Plan.

• BER Response to Life and Medical Sciences Division Committee of Visitors Report.

• BERAC Discussion of Strategy for Developing a 20-Year Planning Horizon for Biological and Environmental Research.

• New Business.

• Public Comment.

Public Participation: The day and a half meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact David Thomassen at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 45 days at the BERAC Web site: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/berac/Minutes.html.

Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary on the program authorized by title VIII of EPACT.

Tentative Agenda (Subject to change; updates will be posted on http://hydrogen.energy.gov and copies of the final agenda will be available the date of the meeting).

The following items will be covered on the agenda:

• Perspectives on the Role of Hydrogen in the Obama Administration.

• Hydrogen Program Response to the GAO Comment on Technical Targets.

• Jobs in the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry.

• Draft and Discussion on the HTAC Annual Report.

• Hydrogen Policy Analysis by Argus Research.

• Progress in Low Platinum and No-Platinum Catalysts.

• Fuel Cell Investment Tax Credit.

• Open Discussion.

• Next Steps.

Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting of HTAC and to make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. The public comment period will take place between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on February 19, 2009. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, e-mail HTAC@nrel.gov at least 5 business days before the meeting. Please indicate if you will be attending the meeting on both days or a particular day, if you want to make an oral statement, and what organization you represent (if appropriate). Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up for the public comment period. Oral comments should be limited to two minutes in length. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The chair of the committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties and to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the committee, you may do so either by submitting a hard copy at the meeting or by submitting an electronic copy to HTAC@nrel.gov.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review at http://hydrogen.energy.gov.

The FERC is combining the requirements from both FERC-716 (“Good Faith Request for Transmission Service and Response by Transmitting Utility Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act” (OMB No. 1902-0170)) and FERC-716A (“Application for Transmission Services Under Section 211 of the Federal Power Act” (OMB No. 1902-0168)) for publication purposes into a single notice. In addition, the requirements will be labeled FERC-716 and consolidated into a single OMB control no. (OMB No. 1902-0170).

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-716 “Good Faith Request for Transmission Service and Response by Transmitting Utility Under Sections 211(a) and 213 (a) of the Federal Power Act” (existing/current OMB No. 1902-0170) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of sections 211 and 213 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended and added by the Energy Policy Act 1992. For the initial process, the information is not filed with the Commission, however, the request and response may be analyzed as a part of a section 211 proceeding. This collection of information covers the information that must be contained in the request and in the response. Should the parties be unable to resolve outstanding issues, an application may be submitted to the FERC. The Commission may order transmission services under the authority of FPA 211.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended section 211 of the FPA and expanded the Commission's authority to order transmission service. Under the revised section 211, the Commission may order transmission services if it finds that such action would be in the public interest, would not unreasonably impair the continued reliability of electric systems affected by the order, and would meet the requirements of amended section 211 of the FPA.

The Commission's policy statement under Public Law 93-3, Policy Statement Regarding Good Faith Requests for Transmission Services and Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Section 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act, as Amended, implemented a data exchange between a transmission requester and a transmitting utility prior to the submission of a section 211 request with the Commission. Components of the data exchange are identified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR 2.20. The general policy sets forth standards by which the Commission determines whether and when a valid good faith request for transmission has been made under section 211 of the FPA. In developing the standards, the Commission sought to encourage an open exchange of information with a reasonable degree of specificity and completeness between the party requesting transmission services and the transmitting utility. As a result, 18 CFR 2.20 identifies twelve components of a good faith estimate and five components of a reply to a good faith request.

Information in the data exchange is not filed as noted above with the Commission, unless negotiations between the transmission requestor and the transmitting utility have not been successful and the transmission requestor files a section 211 request (formerly FERC-716A, OMB No. 1902-0168, and incorporated herein) with the Commission.

When negotiations are unsuccessful, the information collected for the “Application for Transmission Services Under Section 211 of the Federal Power Act” is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 211 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. (824) as amended by the Energy Policy Act 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) 106 Stat. 2776. Under section 211, the Commission may order transmission services if it finds that such action would be in the public interest and would not unreasonably impair the continued reliability of systems affected by the order. The requirements are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Part 36.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no change to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

For the information exchange, the estimated cost burden  1 to respondents is $18,228 (300 hours/2080  2 hours per year times $126,384  3 per year average per employee = $18,228). The cost per respondent is $6,076. For the application to FERC, the estimated cost burden  1 to respondents is $486 (8 hours/2080 hours per year times $126,384 per year average per employee = $486). The cost per respondent is $162.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization, rather than any one particular function or activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking a response to an administrative petition to object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Premcor for a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by April 30, 2009. In addition, the proposed consent decree states that within fifteen (15) business days EPA shall deliver notice of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication.

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

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0049) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

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

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

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

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

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking a response to an administrative petition to object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Citgo for a refinery plant in Corpus Christi, Texas. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by April 30, 2009. In addition, the proposed consent decree states that within fifteen (15) business days EPA shall deliver notice of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication.

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

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0048) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

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

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

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

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

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons interested in agricultural biotechnology or those who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

3. Environmental justice . EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 5 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or one acre or more of water.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional and national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:

Submitter : Monsanto Company, (524-EUP-1).

Pesticide Chemical : Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-GMIR9) in MON 87701 soybean.

Summary of Request : Monsanto Company has requested an amendment and extension of permit 524-EUP-1, which was first granted by EPA on September 13, 2007 and extended on April 11, 2008. Under the existing EUP, plantings are permitted through July 31, 2009. Monsanto is now proposing to extend the experimental program until December 31, 2010 and to amend it by conducting testing with up to 0.466 pounds of Cry1Ac protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in MON 87701 soybean on 1,362 acres (282.86 acres of non-PIP and border rows are also proposed for a total of 1,644.86 acres). Two trial protocols will be conducted, including:

• Breeding and observation.

• Regulatory trials.

States and Commonwealth involved in the trials include: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Virginia.

A copy of the application and any information submitted is available for public review in the docket established for this EUP application as described under ADDRESSES .

Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register .

EPA's Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) was established in 1980 to recognize Agency scientists and engineers who published their work in the peer-reviewed literature. The STAA Program is an Agency-wide competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA employees. The STAA program is administered and managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each year the EPA Science Advisory Board has been asked to review scientific publications nominated by EPA managers and make recommendations to the Administrator for awards. The SAB Staff Office is announcing the formation of a new ad hoc STAA Committee. This Committee will serve for a three year period, and review nominated publications and recommend awards for 2009 through 2011. The SAB is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The Committee will comply with the provisions of FACA and SAB procedural policies, including the SAB process for Committee formation that is described further on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebSABSO/OverviewPanelForm?OpenDocument . The Committee will hold closed meetings to review nominated scientific publications and make monetary award recommendations.

The SAB Staff Office is soliciting nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists and engineers with documented research experience to serve on the STAA Committee. Nominations are requested in the areas of: Environmental Exposure, Transport and Fate; Environmental Monitoring and Methods; Environmental Control Systems and Risk Management; Ecosystems and Ecological Risk Assessment; Human Health and Risk Assessment; and Social and Decision Sciences.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered for appointment on this SAB Committee. Candidates may also nominate themselves. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (which is preferred over hard copy) following the instructions for “Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed” provided on the SAB Web site. The form can be accessed through the “Nomination of Experts” link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab . To receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the information requested.

EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations.

Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, at the contact information provided above in this notice. Non-electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same information as the electronic.

The SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of the nomination and inform nominees of the panel for which they have been nominated. From the nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice (termed the “Widecast”) and other sources, the SAB Staff Office will develop a smaller subset (known as the “Short List”) for more detailed consideration. The Short List will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab and will include, for each candidate, the nominee's name and biosketch. Public comments on the Short List will be accepted for 21 calendar days. During this comment period, the public will be requested to provide information, analysis, or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates for the Panel.

For the SAB a balanced panel is characterized by inclusion of candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. Public responses to the Short List candidates will be considered in the selection of the panel, along with information provided by candidates and information gathered by SAB Staff independently concerning the background of each candidate (e.g., financial disclosure information and computer searches to evaluate a nominee's prior involvement with the topic under review). Specific criteria to be used in evaluation of an individual Panel member include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (c) scientific credibility and impartiality; (d) availability and willingness to serve; and (e) ability to work constructively and effectively in committees.

Prospective candidates will be required to fill-out the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. Ethics information, including EPA Form 3110-48, is available on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/ethics?OpenDocument.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

OMB Control No.: 3060-0686.

Title: International Section 214 Process and Tariff Requirements—47 CFR Sections 63.10, 63.11, 63.13, 63.18, 63.19, 63.21, 63.24, 63.25 and 1.1311.

Form No.: FCC Forms 214, 214TC and 214STA.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 1,650 respondents; 9,892 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-16 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and quarterly reporting requirements; third party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C 21, 34-39, 151, 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201-205, 214, 219, 220, 303(r), 309 and 403.

Total Annual Burden: 33,486 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $1,976,400.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision after this 60 day comment period has ended in order to obtain the full three year OMB clearance. This collection will be revised to account for burden estimates that were not previously accounted for, reflect more accurate and true burden estimates and to clarify and clearly state the rule sections that are included under OMB Control No. 3060-0686.

The collection of information is used by the Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Communications Act. The information collections pertaining to Part 1 of the rules are necessary to determine whether the Commission should grant a license for proposed submarine cables landing in the United States. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 10530, the Commission has been delegated the President's authority under the Cable Landing License Act to grant cable landing licenses, provided that the Commission obtains the approval from the State Department and seeks advice from other government agencies as appropriate. The information collections pertaining to Part 63 are necessary largely to determine the qualifications of applicants to provide common carrier international telecommunications service, including applicants that are affiliated with foreign carriers, and to determine whether and under what conditions the authorizations are in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

If the collections are not conducted or are conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable Landing License Act. In addition, without the information collections, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement because these collections are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies' and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.

The current routine use allows disclosure for educational or informational purposes provided the record does not identify a specific individual. The proposed revision would allow public disclosure of information that identifies individuals.

The proposed revised routine use is compatible with the purpose of taking criminal, civil, and administrative actions because the provision to the media or members of the public of information on events in an investigation or an administrative or judicial proceeding helps to preserve confidence in the integrity of the investigative process and to demonstrate the accountability of agency and Office of Inspector General officers and employees, and of those individuals doing business with the United States. It also will enhance the deterrence of similar crimes against the United States.

The proposed revised routine use will only affect the privacy of individuals insofar as they are involved in an investigation or administrative or judicial proceeding. With respect to such individuals, specific information will not be released if such release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The proposed revised routine use does not involve any new information collection requests.

SYSTEM NAME: Investigation Case Files.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Some of the material contained in the system has been classified in the interests of national security pursuant to Executive Order 11652.

SYSTEM LOCATION: This system is located in the GSA Office of Inspector General, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405. The database for the system, known as the IG-Investigative Documentation Electronic Administrative System (IG-IDEAS), is on a local area network in the GS Building and is operated by the System Development and Support Division of the Office of Inspector General (JPM). The backup tapes for the system are stored at the Mid-Atlantic Investigations Office, 300 D Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024. Some interim reports are filed in the Suspension and Debarment Division, Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals covered by the system are employees, former employees, and applicants for employment with GSA, as well as commissions, committees and small agencies serviced by GSA. The system also includes historical researchers, employees of contractors performing custodial or guard services in buildings under GSA control, any person who was the source of a complaint or an allegation that a crime had taken place, a witness who has information or evidence on any side of an investigation, and any possible or actual suspect in a criminal, administrative (including suspension and/or debarment actions), or civil action.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Investigative files containing personal information, including name, date, and place of birth, experience, and investigative material that is used as a basis for taking civil, criminal, and administrative actions.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 5 U.S.C. app. 3 sec. 2 et seq.

PURPOSE(S): The system serves as a basis for taking civil, criminal, and administrative actions, including the issuance of subpoenas, security clearances, suitability determinations, suspension and debarment recommendations, and similar authorized activities.

Records are used by GSA officials and representatives of other government agencies on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their official duties under the authorities set forth above and for the following routine uses:

a. A record of any case in which there is an indication of a violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, may be disseminated to the appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such a violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the law.

b. A record may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, or foreign agency or to an individual or organization in the course of investigating a potential or actual violation of any law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, or during the course of a trial or hearing or the preparation for a trial or hearing for such a violation, if there is reason to believe that such agency, individual, or organization possesses information relating to the investigation, and disclosing the information is reasonably necessary to elicit such information or to obtain the cooperation of a witness or an informant.

c. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed in an appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign court or grand jury proceeding in accordance with established constitutional, substantive, or procedural law or practice, even when the agency is not a party to the litigation.

d. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to an actual or potential party or to his or her attorney for the purpose of negotiation or discussion on matters such as settlement of the case or matter, plea-bargaining, or informal discovery proceedings.

e. A record relating to a case or matter that has been referred by an agency for investigation, prosecution, or enforcement or that involves a case or matter within the jurisdiction of any agency may be disclosed to the agency to notify it of the status of the case or matter or of any decision or determination that has been made, or to make such other inquiries and reports as are necessary during the processing of the case or matter.

f. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to a foreign country pursuant to an international treaty or convention entered into and ratified by the United States, or to an Executive agreement.

g. A record may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, foreign, or international law enforcement agency to assist in crime prevention and detection or to provide leads for investigation.

h. A record may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, foreign, or tribal or other public authority in response to its request in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuing of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information relates to the requesting agency’s decision on the matter.

i. A record may be disclosed to the news media and public in order to provide information on events in an investigation or administrative or judicial proceeding when the Inspector General determines there exists a legitimate public interest, unless the Inspector General determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

j. A record may be disclosed to an appeal or grievance examiner, formal complaints examiner, equal opportunity investigator, arbitrator, or other authorized official engaged in investigation or settlement of matters and investigations involving the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of Special Counsel.

k. A record may be disclosed as a routine use to a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the request of the person who is the subject of the record.

l. Information may be disclosed at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for reviewing of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19.

m. A record may be disclosed: (a) To an expert, a consultant, or contractor of GSA engaged in a duty related to an agency function to the extent necessary to perform the function; and (b) to a physician to conduct a fitness-for-duty examination of a GSA officer or employee.

n. A record may be disclosed to an official charged with the responsibility to conduct qualitative assessment reviews of internal safeguards and management procedures employed in investigative operations. This disclosure category includes members of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and officials and administrative staff within their investigative chain of command, as well as authorized officials of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

o. A record relating to a case may be disclosed to the GSA Office of Acquisition Policy for a decision or determination regarding suspension and debarment measures taken by the Government to disqualify contractors from participation in Government contracting or subcontracting.

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

q. In any legal proceeding, where pertinent, to which GSA is a party before a court or administrative body.

r. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in accordance with their responsibilities for evaluating Federal programs.

s. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management purposes.

STORAGE: Paper records are kept in files and file folders. Electronic records are stored in an electronic database or on hard or floppy disks and tapes.

RETRIEVABILITY: Paper records are retrievable manually by name from files indexed alphabetically and filed numerically by location and incident. Electronic records are retrievable by case number or by full or partial name.

SAFEGUARDS: Paper records are stored in locked rooms with access limited to authorized personnel. Computer-based records are available only to authorized users with a need to know and are protected by a network logon password, user password, and restricted right of access to the software, system, file, data element, and report.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are disposed of by shredding or burning, as scheduled in the HB, GSA Maintenance and Disposition System (CIO P 1820.1), and the records schedules authorized by that system.

SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: The system manager is the System Development and Support Division of the Office of Inspector General (JPM). The mailing address is: General Services Administration (JPM), 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: An individual who wishes to be notified whether the system contains a record concerning him or her should address a request to the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (JC), General Services Administration, Room 5324, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: An individual seeking access to a record should put his or her request in writing and address it to the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (JC), including full name (maiden name if appropriate), address, and date and place of birth. General inquiries may be made by calling the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General at (202) 501-1932.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: GSA rules for contesting the content of a record or appealing a denial of a request to amend a record are in 41 CFR part 105-64.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The sources are individuals themselves, employees, informants, law enforcement agencies, other government agencies, employers, references, co-workers, neighbors, educational institutions, and intelligence sources.

EXEMPTION CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j), this system of records is exempt from all provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 with the exception of subsections (b); (c)(1) and (2); (e)(4)(A) through (F); (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11); and (i) of the Act, to the extent that information in the system pertains to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals; to the activities of prosecutors, courts, and correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities; and to (a) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (b) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, that is associated with an identifiable individual; or (c) reports of enforcement of the criminal laws, from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. This system is exempted to maintain the efficacy and integrity of the Office of Inspector General’s law enforcement function. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), this system of records is exempt from subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the Privacy Act of 1974.

a. To the extent that the system consists of investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which the individual would otherwise be eligible as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of the Act, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence; and

b. To the extent the system consists of investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of the Act, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. This system has been exempted to maintain the efficacy and integrity of lawful investigations conducted pursuant to the Office of Inspector General’s law enforcement responsibilities and responsibilities in the areas of Federal employment, government contracts, and access to security classified information.

In accordance with Public Law 105-392, the ACMH was established to provide advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health in improving the health of each racial and ethnic minority group and on the development of goals and specific program activities of the Office of Minority Health.

Topics to be discussed during this meeting will include strategies to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities, as well as other related issues.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person at least fourteen business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should mail or fax their comments to the Office of Minority Health at least seven business days prior to the meeting. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to ACMH members should submit their materials to Garth Graham, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACMH, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, prior to close of business February 13, 2009.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). During the meeting, the Acting Chief Privacy Officer will provide the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee an update on the activities of the DHS Privacy Office. The Committee will hear presentations on the DHS-TRIP program, on current developments in DHS's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and on the DHS Privacy Office's recent international outreach activities. In addition, the subcommittees will update the Committee on their current work. Please note that the meeting may end early if all business is completed. An agenda will be posted in advance of the meeting on the Committee's web site at http://www.dhs.gov/privacy .

At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may make brief ( i.e. , no more than three minutes) oral presentations from 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please register in advance or sign up on the day of the meeting. If you wish to provide written materials to be distributed to each member of the Committee in advance of the meeting, please submit them, preferably in electronic form to facilitate distribution, to Martha K. Landesberg, Executive Director, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, by February 23, 2009.

For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Martha K. Landesberg, Executive Director, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, as soon as possible.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2008-1240], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit them by only one means. 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 Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and will address them accordingly.

Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket. Enter the docket number for this Notice [USCG-2008-1240] in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in 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 the Privacy Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

1. Title: Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.

Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required the issuance of regulations related to the structural integrity of tank vessels, including periodic gauging of the plating thickness of tank vessels over 30 years old. This collection of information is used to verify the structural integrity of older tank vessels.

Need: Title 46 U.S.C. section 3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations related to tank vessels, including design, construction, alteration, repair, and maintenance. Title 46 CFR section 31.10-21a prescribes the regulations related to periodic gauging and engineering analyses for certain tank vessels over 30 years old.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of certain tank vessels.

Frequency: Every 5 years.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 13,688 hours to 9,918 hours a year.

2. Title: National Response Resource Inventory.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0102.

Summary: The information is needed to improve the effectiveness of deploying response equipment in the event of an oil spill. It may also be used in the development of contingency plans.

Need: Section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380) requires the Coast Guard to compile and maintain a comprehensive list of spill removal equipment. This collection helps fulfill that requirement.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Oil spill removal organizations.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,236 hours to 1,296 hours a year.

3. Title: Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and Southeast Coasts of the United States.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0103.

Summary: The information is needed to reduce the number of ship collisions with endangered northern right whales. Coast Guard rules at 33 CFR part 169 establish two mandatory ship-reporting systems off the northeast and southeast coasts of the United States.

Need: The collection involves ships' reporting by radio to a shore-based authority when entering the area covered by the reporting system. The ship will receive, in return, information to reduce the likelihood of collisions between themselves and northern right whales—an endangered species—in the areas established with critical-habitat designation.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Operators of certain vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 226 hours to 211 hours a year.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. Comments to Coast Guard must contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2008-1009]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is best if they are received on or before the March 6, 2009.

Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov . They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act Policy” below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2008-1009], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit them by only one means. 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 Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. In response to your comments, we may revise the ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for this collection. The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2008-1009] in the Search box, and click, “Go>>.” You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in 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 statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (73 FR 60708, October 14, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.

Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, and Engineering Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD) (33 CFR part 159).

OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Manufacturers of safety equipment, materials and marine sanitation devices.

Abstract: Title 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302 authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety equipment and material regulations. Title 46 CFR parts 159 to 164 prescribe these requirements. Title 33 U.S.C. 1322 authorizes the Coast Guard to establish MSD regulations. Title 33 CFR part 159 prescribes these rules. This information will be used to determine whether manufacturers are in compliance with Coast Guard regulations. When the Coast Guard approves any safety equipment, material or MSD for use on a commercial vessel or pleasure craft, the manufacturer is issued a Certificate of Approval.

Forms: CGHQ-10030.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 20,529 hours to 103,289 hours a year.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective December 31, 2008.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will submit the proposed extension of information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

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 of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, ( e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses).

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Notice of Funding Availability for the Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities Program.

OMB Control Number: 2528-0198 (exp. 05/31/09).

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The information is being collected to select applicants for award in this statutorily created competitive grant program and too monitor performance of grantees to ensure they meet statutory and program goals and requirements.

Agency Form Numbers: SF-424, SF-424 Supplement, HUD-424-CB, SFLLL, HUD-27300, HUD-2880, HUD-2991, HUD-2990, HUD-2993, HUD-2994, HUD-2994A, HUD-96010, and HUD-96011.

Members of the Affected Public: Nonprofit Hispanic-Serving Institutions that meet the definition of an HSI established in Title V of the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 105-244; enacted October 7, 1998).

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: Information pursuant to grant award will be submitted once a year. The following chart details the respondent burden on an annual and semi-annual basis:

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

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

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Multifamily Housing Procedures for Projects Affected by Presidentially-Declared Disasters.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-NEW.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: This information is submitted to HUD for review to ensure that owners follow HUD procedures regarding recovery efforts after a Presidentially-declared disaster.

Frequency of Submission: When affected by a Presidentially-Declared disaster.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 393.

Status: New Collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Telecommunications Services in Multifamily Housing Projects.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-NEW.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information is used to ensure that owners/agents and telecommunications service providers comply with HUD requirements when providing telecommunications services to tenants in multifamily housing projects.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 336,617.

Status: New Collection.

Endangered Species

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import blood samples of Bornean orangutans ( Pongo pygmaeus ) from Canada for the purpose of scientific research on the incidence of disease in captive-held orangutans in an Indonesian orangutan rehabilitation center. This notification covers a one-time import.

The applicant requests a permit to import two male captive-born siamangs ( Symphalangus syndactylus ), and one male captive-born Javan gibbon ( Hylobates moloch ) from the Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, United Kingdom, for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive breeding.

The applicant requests a permit to export one male and re-export one female captive-born siamang ( Symphalangus syndactylus ) to the Zooz Park, Ontario, Canada, for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive breeding.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one female brown hyena ( Parahyaena brunnea ) from Namibia for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Individuals wishing to receive copies of the application, draft HCP, draft EIS, and draft IA, should contact the Service by telephone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Copies of the subject documents are also available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ], and may be downloaded from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ventura/ .

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

Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the Act, and therefore cannot be authorized by an incidental take permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to them by a habitat conservation plan. All species included on an incidental take permit would receive assurances under the Service's “No Surprises” regulation [50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)].

We have received an application for an incidental take permit covering 27 listed and unlisted species that may be taken or otherwise affected by on-going ranch activities and future low density residential and commercial development activities on a portion of the Tejon Ranch. The potential impacts of take that could result from such covered activities would be avoided, minimized and mitigated as described in the Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (plan) submitted as part of the incidental take permit application by Tejon. The Applicant has prepared the plan to satisfy the requirements for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under the Act.

The Applicant seeks a 50-year incidental take permit for covered activities within 141,886 acres of covered lands on Tejon Ranch lands in Kern County, California. Activities covered by the permit would include ongoing activities that have historically occurred at the Ranch, such as grazing and film production, as well as planned future community development of approximately 5,533 acres within and adjacent to the Interstate-5 corridor in the Tejon Mountain Village Planning Area and the Lebec/Existing Headquarters area, and take minimization, mitigation and conservation measures provided under the MSHCP. The permit would not cover hunting or mineral extraction.

Species proposed for coverage in the MSHCP are species that are currently listed as federally threatened or endangered or have the potential to become listed during the term of the permit and have some likelihood to occur within the plan area. Several of the species proposed for coverage are also listed under the California Endangered Species Act or identified as Fully Protected species or species of special concern under state law. Should any of the unlisted covered wildlife species become listed under the Act during the term of the permit, take authorization for those species would become effective upon listing. Twenty-one animal species and six plant species are known or have the potential to occur within the plan area and are proposed to be covered by the permit (Covered Species). The permit would include the following federally listed animal species: California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus —federally listed as endangered and state listed as endangered and fully protected), least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus —federally and state listed as endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus —federally and state listed as endangered), and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Democerus californicus dimorphus —federally listed as threatened). The permit would also include the following species currently unlisted under the Act: Western yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus occidentalis —federal candidate for listing and state listed as endangered); Tehachapi slender salamander ( Batrachoseps stebbinsi —state listed as threatened), bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus —state listed as endangered), American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum —state listed as endangered and fully protected), little willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii brewsteri —state listed as endangered), golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos —state species of special concern and fully protected), white-tailed kite ( Elanus leucurus —state fully protected), ringtail ( Bassariscus astutus —state fully protected), tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor —state species of concern), Tehachapi pocket mouse ( Perognathus alticola inexpectatus —state species of concern), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia —state species of concern), yellow-blotched salamander ( Ensatina eschscholtzii croceater —state species of concern), western spadefoot ( Spea hammondii —state species of concern), purple martin ( Progne subis —state species of concern), yellow warbler ( Dendroica petechia brewsteri —state species of concern), coast horned lizard ( Phrynosoma coronatum (both frontale and blainvillii populations)—state species of concern), two-striped garter snake ( Thamnophis hammondii —state species of concern), round-leaved filaree ( Erodium macrophyllum ), Fort Tejon woolly sunflower ( Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii ), Kusche's sandwort ( Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei ), Tehachapi buckwheat ( Eriogonum callistum ), striped adobe lily ( Fritillaria striata —state listed as threatened), and Tejon poppy ( Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis ).

The MSHCP includes a conservation strategy intended to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable any impacts that would occur to covered species as the result of the covered activities. Under the plan, and consistent with the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement between Tejon and the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Endangered Habitats League, and Planning and Conservation League, no land development would be allowed within approximately 93,522 acres of Covered Lands, including the approximately 37,100-acre Tunis and Winters ridge area, which is designated as the Condor Study Area under the plan and is the area of the ranch most likely to be frequented by condors. An additional 23,001 acres would be preserved as open space within the Tejon Mountain Village planning area, resulting in the permanent conservation of approximately 82 percent of the Covered Lands (MSHCP Mitigation Lands). Upon initiation of construction of the Tejon Mountain Village development, the MSCHP requires that the MSHCP Mitigation Lands be permanently protected by phased recordation of conservation easements or equivalent legal restrictions over all such lands by the end of the permit term. The MSCHP also requires implementation of general and species-specific take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the covered species. With regard to the California condor, the plan requires the ongoing monitoring of covered activities by a qualified biologist to reduce the potential for any human/condor interactions and the permanent enforcement of covenants, conditions and restrictions on residential development to minimize any impacts to condors. The plan also provides funding for condor capture, care and relocation in the unlikely event that a condor becomes habituated to human activities and includes a supplemental feeding program for condors. No lethal take of condors would be authorized under the permit.

The Service's proposed issuance of an incidental take permit is a federal action and triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Service has prepared a draft EIS that evaluates the impacts of proposed issuance of the permit and implementation of the MSHCP, and also evaluates the impacts of a reasonable range of alternatives.

The draft EIS analyzes three alternatives in addition to the proposed MSHCP, summarized above. The Service has identified the proposed MSHCP as the Preferred Alternative. Additional alternatives are described below.

No Action/No MSHCP Alternative: The No Action/No MSHCP Alternative allows for development in areas where the Service believes that no take of federally listed species is likely to occur and thus no ITP is required. The No Action/No MSHCP Alternative generally includes ongoing Ranch uses as well as development of the Covered Lands that could occur consistent with the Kern County General Plan—Land Use Designations on the approximately 56,922 acres of the Covered Lands that are outside of the CSA and a two-mile buffer area around the CSA. This Alternative provides for development of up to 5,897 residential units and 6,512,200 square feet of commercial space.

Condor HCP Alternative: The Condor HCP Alternative would result in the issuance of an ITP covering only the California condor. No development would occur within the CSA for the 50-year term of the ITP, but permanent conservation easements would not be recorded within the CSA or elsewhere within the Covered Lands. This alternative would not include the comprehensive protective measures that would apply to all of the Covered Species in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative. The Condor HCP Alternative would include the same type and density of development within the Tejon Mountain Village Plan area and Lebec/Headquarters area as is included in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, but would also include development consistent with the Kern County General Plan—Land Use Designations in all other portions of the Covered Lands except for the CSA. This Alternative provides for development of up to 7,100 residential units and 4,940,710 square feet of commercial space development.

MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative: The MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative would include issuance of an ITP for the five federally listed species identified above. Development in the locations, densities and intensities allowed under the current Kern County General Plan—Land Use Designations would be covered, except that no development would be allowed in the CSA during the term of the ITP. This Alternative provides for development of up to 8,752 residential units and 6,762,690 square feet of commercial space development.

If you wish to comment on the permit application, draft MSHCP, draft IA, or draft EIS, you may submit your comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to them to prepare a final EIS. A permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the final EIS and completion of the Record of Decision.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6).

Background

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we give notice that the Council will hold a teleconference on Monday, February 23, 2009, from 2 to 3 p.m.

The Council was formed in January 1993 to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on nationally significant recreational fishing, boating, and aquatic resource conservation issues. The Council represents the interests of the public and private sectors of the sport fishing, boating, and conservation communities and is organized to enhance partnerships among industry, constituency groups, and government. The 18-member Council, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, includes the Service Director and the president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, who both serve in ex officio capacities. Other Council members are directors from State agencies responsible for managing recreational fish and wildlife resources and individuals who represent the interests of saltwater and freshwater recreational fishing, recreational boating, the recreational fishing and boating industries, recreational fisheries resource conservation, Native American tribes, aquatic resource outreach and education, and tourism. Background information on the Council is available at http://www.fws.gov/sfbpc.

The Council will convene to: (1) Approve recommendations to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service for funding Fiscal Year 2009 Boating Infrastructure Grant proposals; and (2) to consider other Council business. We will post the final agenda on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/sfbpc.

Whether you wish to comment orally or in written form, you must provide us with written copies of your comments. All written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats:

• One hard copy with original signature, and

• One electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda are invited to submit written statements to the Council. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written information for the Council to consider during the public teleconference. We must receive all written statements by Monday, February 16, 2009, so that we can make the information available to the Council for their consideration prior to the teleconference.

The Council Coordinator will maintain the teleconference's summary minutes, which will be available for public inspection at the location under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT during regular business hours within 30 days after the teleconference. You may purchase personal copies for the cost of duplication.

With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Tensas River NWR. We started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on September 08, 2006 (71 FR 53131).

Tensas River NWR consists of 74,622 acres in fee title and 195 acres in easement. It is located in the Tensas Basin in northeast Louisiana, approximately 60 miles southeast of Monroe, Louisiana, and 25 miles southwest of Vicksburg, Mississippi. The refuge area encompasses portions of Madison, Tensas, and Franklin Parishes. The office/visitor center and maintenance facilities on the refuge are located approximately 12 miles southwest of Tallulah, Louisiana.

In an effort to conserve the largest privately owned tract of bottomland hardwoods remaining in the Mississippi Delta, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Tensas River NWR by Public Law 96-285 on June 28, 1980. Tensas River NWR was established for various purposes, including:

Tensas River NWR currently provides a mix of various habitat types, including bottomland hardwood forests, hardwood reforestation areas, open field moist-soil areas, and open field-cropland. There are approximately 11,000 acres of forest less than 30 years old; 6,000 acres of 30- to 60-year old timber, and 53,000 acres of 60-plus year old timber. Eighty percent (56,000 acres) of the refuge is composed of sweetgum/willow oak/Nuttall oak forest type; 20 percent is sugarberry/American elm/green ash (12,600 acres); and a small percentage is overcup oak/bitter pecan and cypress brake timber types. The majority of the refuge is in a closed-canopy condition.

Because Tensas River NWR is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, the refuge is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning initiatives. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) is a critical ecoregion for migratory birds in North America. Tensas River NWR provides important foraging and resting habitats within the MAV for waterfowl, as well as a variety of other migratory birds such as woodcock, marshbirds, neotropical migratory birds, colonial waterbirds, and wading birds. This area specifically contributes important regional resources to an international habitat management effort known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which seeks to return waterfowl species populations to levels observed during the 1970s.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act and NEPA.

Significant issues addressed in this Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Threatened Louisiana black bear, (2) general refuge and visitor center access, (3) clear integration of refuge management with regional watershed/ecosystem plans, (4) habitat restoration and management, (5) bottomland hardwood forest restoration and management, and (6) how to improve opportunities for environmental education/interpretation. The Service developed three alternatives for management of the refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C as the Service's proposed alternative.

We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose “Alternative C” as the proposed alternative. A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below.

Current management and public use would continue under this alternative. Refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with limited baseline biological information and with limited monitoring. Wildlife surveys would still be completed for presence and absence of species and to alert refuge staff to large-scale changes in population trends. Cooperation with partners for monitoring waterfowl, eagle, fish, and deer herd health surveys would continue. The refuge would continue to provide habitat for and monitor the progress on the repatriation of the Louisiana black bear. It would also maintain the current habitat mix for the benefit of other migratory birds, shorebirds, marshbirds, and landbirds. Staff would continue existing surveys to monitor long-term population trends and health of resident species.

Bottomland hardwood forest management would continue at the current rate of thinning to maintain a closed canopy forest and retain as much water tupelo and bald cypress as possible. The open fields would continue with manipulating water levels for the moist-soil and cooperative cropland management. Management for invasive species would continue with opportunistic treatment and mapping. Partnerships would continue with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries for several biological programs, hunting regulations, and law enforcement issues. The refuge partners program would still develop projects with interested parties for carbon sequestration projects and for invasive species.

Hunting, fishing, and environmental education programs would continue to be the priority focus of public use on Tensas River NWR, with no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions would remain. Environmental education and wildlife observation and photography would be accommodated at present levels, with a few interpretive sites added. Staffing would remain at current level with no new positions added, but current vacancies would be advertised and filled.

This alternative is driven by reducing costs of funding and staffing, with reduced habitat and wildlife management and a reduced public use program. The biological information would be modified to develop management programs that could be implemented less frequently, yet still accomplish the objectives. Extensive baseline inventorying and monitoring programs would be conducted with several partners to provide a solid foundation of the current condition of refuge habitat and wildlife while monitoring for changes in trends.

Additional research projects would be implemented in this alternative, depending on granting opportunities and partnerships with other agencies and universities. An intensive bottomland hardwood forest inventory would be implemented to define current conditions and monitor natural successional changes. Management in the bottomlands would be limited so that the forest would go through natural succession as defined in a revised Forest Habitat Management Plan. Open fields would be allowed to go through natural succession to bottomland hardwood forests, and moist-soil units would not be maintained. Invasive species management would become a priority to establish baseline information on location and density and protocols for control. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects.

Public use would be limited under this alternative, with custodial-level maintenance. Public use would be monitored more closely for impacts to wildlife, and if negative impacts occurred, new restrictions or closures would result. Deer hunting would be allowed when data demonstrated that the population had exceeded the habitat carrying capacity and a reduction in herd size was deemed necessary. An extensive survey for monitoring the deer population and its association with habitat conditions would be implemented. Fishing would continue as currently managed. Environmental education, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography would be accommodated at present levels; but access would be limited to July-October and February-April to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. Staffing would increase by four positions ( e.g. , biologist, forester, and two maintenance workers) to handle the increase in biological inventorying and monitoring, and to control invasive species.

Biological potential of historical habitats is restored and enhanced, with most management actions emphasizing natural ecological processes to foster habitat functions and wildlife populations. The biological program would be enhanced with inventorying and monitoring, so that adaptive management could be implemented, primarily for migratory birds, but other species of wildlife could benefit as well. Through the use of grants and partnerships, migratory bird use and nesting success on the refuge would be evaluated. Partnerships would be developed to establish scientifically valid protocols and to collaboratively work on research projects that would provide information on how forest management is affecting wildlife.

Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed based on an inventory defining current conditions. Bottomlands would have management increased to open the canopy cover and increase structural and vegetation diversity. Water control structures and pumping capability would be improved to enhance moist-soil and cropland management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasive species would be mapped and protocols for control established with the addition of a forester. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects.

Under Alternative C, land acquisition, reforestation, and resource protection at Tensas River NWR would be intensified from the level now maintained in the “No Action” Alternative. In the refuge's Private Lands Program, staff would work with private landowners of adjacent tracts to manage and improve habitats. Staff would also explore opportunities with partners to protect existing and extend potential foraging areas off refuge lands. Alternative C would provide a full-time law enforcement officer, an equipment operator, a maintenance mechanic, and a wildlife technician. The refuge would develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Within 3 years of implementing the CCP, refuge staff would develop a Visitor Services Plan for use in expanding public use facilities and opportunities on the refuge. This step-down management plan would provide overall, long-term direction and guidance in developing and running a larger public use program at Tensas River NWR. Alternative C would also increase opportunities for visitors by improving and/or adding facilities such as photo-blinds, observation sites, and trails.

After the comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them.

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

The Commission instituted this investigation on May 8, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Ultra Products, Inc. of Fletcher, Ohio and Systemax Inc. of Port Washington, New York (collectively “Ultra”). 73 FR 26144-5 (May 8, 2008). The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain power supplies by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,133,293. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named a number of respondents including Andyson International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan (“Andyson”). On July 21, 2008, the Commission determined not to review an ID granting Ultra's motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add a respondent, Super Flower Computer, Inc. (“Super Flower”). 73 FR 42365-6 (July 21, 2008).

On December 11, 2008, Ultra filed under Commission Rule 210.21(a) a motion for termination of the investigation with respect to respondents Andyson and Super Flower based on a withdrawal of allegations from the Complaint. Also on December 11, Ultra filed a motion to stay the procedural schedule pending the ALJ's decision on the motion to terminate. On December 22, 2008, the Commission Investigative Attorney filed a response in support of the motion to terminate Andyson and Super Flower. No other responses were filed.

On January 5, 2009, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting under Commission Rule 210.21(a) Ultra's motion to terminate the investigation as to respondents Andyson and Super Flower. The ALJ noted that, with the termination of Andyson and Super Flower from the investigation, there are no longer any participating respondents in this investigation. All other named respondents were previously terminated from the investigation by way of settlement agreement, consent agreement, or default. The ALJ, therefore, terminated the investigation and stayed the procedural schedule. No petitions for review of this ID were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

I. Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 29-30906-01. This license is held by Signum Biosciences, Inc. (Licensee), for its facility located at 1 Deer Park Drive in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey (Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated April 14, 2008. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register .

The proposed action would approve the Licensee's request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 29-30906-01 was issued on May 18, 2004, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops.

The Facility consists of 5,800 square feet of office space and laboratories. The Facility is located in a commercial area. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to two laboratories totaling 2,500 square feet.

On March 19, 2008, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release.

The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility.

The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: Hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides.

The Licensee conducted a final status survey on March 19, 2008. This survey covered the laboratories in which radionuclides were used. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated April 14, 2008. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable.

Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.

The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for review on November 24, 2008. On December 18, 2008, the Department of Environmental Protection responded by letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;”

2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations , Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”

5. Amendment Request Letter dated April 14, 2008 (ML081190328);

6. Request for additional information dated June 12, 2008 (ML081680055); and

7. Deficiency response letter dated September 3, 2008 (ML082700975).

If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 29-19080-01. This license is held by Seiko Corporation of America (the Licensee), for its Seiko Building located at 1111 MacArthur Boulevard in Mahway, New Jersey (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use and termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated September 29, 2008. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register .

The proposed action would approve the Licensee's September 29, 2008, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of its NRC materials license. License No. 29-19080-01 was issued on December 6, 1991, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use luminous paint contained on time piece hands and dials for purposes of possession and storage prior to distribution and the repair of watches including replacements of parts.

The Facility is situated within a 141,000 square foot building containing the repair shop and warehouse. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to 6,000 square feet. The Facility is located in a mixed residential/commercial area. Within the Facility, the radionuclide of concern was promethium 147 because its half-life is greater than 120 days.

On May 30, 2008, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved operating radiation safety procedures were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release and for license termination.

The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC.

The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclide with half-lives greater than 120 days: Promethium 147. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by this radionuclide.

The Licensee conducted a final status survey during September 2008. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's letter dated September 29, 2008. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, which will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable.

Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.

The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for review on December 2, 2008. On December 23, 2008, the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection responded by letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;”

2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”

5. Seiko Corporation of America's letter dated September 29, 2008 [ML082810232]; and

6. Seiko Corporation of America's letter dated November 13, 2008 [ML083231061].

If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial valuation methods and assumptions (including interest rate assumptions) to be used in determining the actuarial present value of benefits under single-employer plans that terminate (29 CFR part 4044) and under multiemployer plans that undergo a mass withdrawal of contributing employers (29 CFR part 4281). Each month PBGC publishes the interest rates to be used under those regulations for plans terminating or undergoing mass withdrawal during the next month.

The interest rates are intended to reflect current conditions in the investment and annuity markets. To determine these interest rates, PBGC gathers pricing data from insurance companies that are providing annuity contracts to terminating pension plans through a quarterly “Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates.” The survey is distributed by the American Council of Life Insurers and provides PBGC with “blind” data ( i.e. , is conducted in such a way that PBGC is unable to match responses with the companies that submitted them). The information from the survey is also used by PBGC in determining the interest rates it uses to value benefits payable to participants and beneficiaries in PBGC-trusteed plans for purposes of PBGC's financial statements.

The survey is directed at insurance companies that have volunteered to participate, most or all of which are members of the American Council of Life Insurers. The survey is conducted quarterly and will be sent to approximately 22 insurance companies. Based on experience under the current approval, PBGC estimates that 6 insurance companies will complete and return the survey. PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 26 hours and $138.

The collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0030 through March 31, 2009. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years. 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.

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board.:

The Social Security Act (Act) provides a streamlined process for a representative to obtain approval of the fee he or she wishes to charge for representing a claimant before the agency. See, §§ 206(a)(2)(A) and 1631(d)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, Public Law No. 101-508, § 5106. To use that process, the representative and the claimant must agree, in writing, to a fee that does not exceed the lesser of 25% of past due benefits or a prescribed dollar amount. OBRA of 1990 set the initial fee amount at $4,000 and gave the Commissioner the authority to increase it periodically, provided that the cumulative rate of increase did not at any time exceed the rate of increase in primary insurance amounts since January 1, 1991. The law further provided that notice of any increased amount shall be published in the Federal Register . On January 17, 2002, we published a notice raising the maximum fee to $5,300. With this notice, we announce that the maximum dollar amount for fee agreements will increase to $6,000. This increase does not exceed the rate of increase provided in OBRA of 1990. We believe this increase will adequately compensate representatives for their services while ensuring that claimants are protected from excessive fees. A decision-maker may approve fees up to the new amount effective June 22, 2009. This effective date will ensure adequate time to provide training and guidance to our employees and to make necessary changes in our information technology infrastructure.

Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, pursuant to its assigned responsibilities under U.S.C. 327, and certain other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by approving the Ventura/Santa Barbara U.S.101 HOV Project in the State of California. When completed, the project will widen the U.S. 101 from four lanes to six lanes three northbound and three southbound by constructing an HOV lane in the existing median between Mobil Pier Undercrossing in Ventura County and Casitas Pass Road in Santa Barbara County. The purpose of the project is to relieve congestion, improve operations, safety and pedestrian and bicycle access. The project length is 6 miles. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment for the project, approved on December 12, 2008 and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on December 12, 2008, and in other documents in the project records. The Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting the California Department of Transportation at the address provided above. The FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/ .

This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:

1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.].

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)].

8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.

Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Wisconsin: U.S. 12 in Sauk County, WI, from I-90/94 to Terrytown Road in Baraboo, WI. Due to design changes affecting property outside of the original footprint specified in the FEIS (FHWA-WI-EIS-96-02-F) and ROD (approved February 10, 2004), additional analysis of the area impacted by the design changes was conducted. A Revised Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on October 29, 2008 and approves the design changes and updates the findings for the project. The actions taken by FHWA, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project, and in other documents in the FHWA or WisDOT project records. The FEIS, Revised ROD, and other project records are available by contacting FHWA or WisDOT at the addresses provided above. The FHWA FEIS and Revised ROD can also be viewed at the Wisconsin DOT's La Crosse office at the address noted above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:

1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303] and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act as amended [16 U.S.C. 4601].

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)].

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq. ]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(ll)]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013].

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].

7. Executive Orders: E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Population; E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites.

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel HANALEI MOON is:

Intended Use: “Carriage of Passengers in Commerce and Navigation on waters of the United States at Hawaii.”

Geographic Region: “Hanalei, Hawaiian Islands.”

Anyone is able to 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

Title: 23 CFR, Part 1313, Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures—Section 410.

OMB Number: 2127-0501.

Type of Request: Extension to a previously approved collection of information.

Abstract: An impaired driving incentive grant is available to States that have an alcohol fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million vehicle miles traveled as determined by using the most recent Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data or that are one of the ten States that have the highest alcohol related fatality rates as determined by using the most recent FARS data. States designated as a high fatality rate State must submit a comprehensive plan for conducting high visibility enforcement and a report on the previous years activities.

States may also qualify through meeting specified program criteria. To demonstrate compliance using program criteria a State must submit an application that shows how they met three of eight criteria in FY2006, four of eight criteria in FY2007 and five of eight criteria in FY2008 and FY2009.

Affected Public: The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1350.

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site ( http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac ) or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on demand service, tel.: (202) 622-0077.

On June 28, 2005, the President, invoking the authority, inter alia , of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (“IEEPA”), issued Executive Order 13382 (70 FR 38567, July 1, 2005) (the “Order”), effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 29, 2005. In the Order, the President took additional steps with respect to the national emergency described and declared in Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery (including missiles capable of delivering such weapons), including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use such items, by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern; (3) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity or transaction described in clause (2) above or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order; and (4) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.

On January 16, 2009, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Justice, and other relevant agencies, designated two individuals and two entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382.

The list of additional designees is as follows:

The effect of the proposed revisions to the reporting requirements of these information collections will vary from institution to institution, depending on the institution's involvement with the types of activities or transactions to which the proposed changes apply. OTS estimates that implementation of these reporting changes will result in a small increase in the current reporting burden imposed by the TFR. The following burden estimates include the effect of the proposed revisions.

Title: Thrift Financial Report.

OMB Number: 1550-0023.

Form Number: OTS 1313.

Statutory Requirement: 12 U.S.C. 1464(v) imposes reporting requirements for savings associations. Except for selected items, these information collections are not given confidential treatment.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collections.

Affected Public: Savings associations.

Estimated Number of Respondents and Recordkeepers: 811.

Estimated Burden Hours per Respondent: 54.68 burden hours on average.

Estimated Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 177,398 burden hours.

Abstract: All OTS-regulated savings associations must comply with the information collections described in this notice. OTS collects this information each calendar quarter or less frequently if so stated. OTS uses this information to monitor the condition, performance, and risk profile of individual institutions and systemic risk among groups of institutions and the industry as a whole. Except for selected items, these information collections are not given confidential treatment.

OTS last revised the form and content of the TFR in a manner that significantly affected a substantial percentage of institutions in March 2007. Revisions since March 2007 focused on specific activities and were primarily made in response to changes in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). These focused revisions meant that the new or revised TFR items were minor or applicable to only a small percentage of institutions.

During the past year OTS has evaluated its ongoing information needs. OTS recognizes that the TFR imposes reporting requirements, which are a component of the regulatory burden facing institutions. Another contributor to this regulatory burden is the examination process, particularly on-site examinations during which institution staff spend time and effort responding to inquiries and requests for information designed to assist examiners in evaluating the condition and risk profile of the institution. The amount of attention that examiners direct to risk areas of the institution under examination is, in large part, determined from TFR data. These data, and analytical reports including the Uniform Thrift Performance Report, assist examiners in scoping and making their preliminary assessments of risks during the planning phase of the examination.

A risk-focused review of the information from an institution's TFR allows examiners to make preliminary risk assessments prior to on-site work. The degree of perceived risk determines the extent of the examination procedures that examiners initially plan for each risk area. If the outcome of these procedures reveals a higher level of risk in a particular area, the examiner adjusts the examination scope and procedures accordingly.

TFR data are also a vital source of information for the monitoring and regulatory activities of OTS. Among their benefits, these activities aid in determining whether the frequency of an institution's examination cycle should remain at maximum allowed time intervals, thereby lessening overall regulatory burden. More risk-focused TFR data enhance the ability of OTS to assess whether an institution is experiencing changes in its risk profile that warrant immediate follow-up, which may include accelerating the timing of an on-site examination.

In developing this proposal, OTS considered a range of potential information needs, particularly in the areas of credit risk, liquidity, and liabilities, and identified those additions to the TFR that are most critical and relevant to OTS in fulfilling its supervisory responsibilities. At the same time, OTS identified certain existing TFR line items that are no longer sufficiently critical or useful to warrant their continued collection. OTS recognizes that the reporting burden that would result from the addition to the TFR of the new items discussed in this proposal would not be fully offset by the proposed elimination of, or establishment of reporting thresholds for, a limited number of other TFR items, thereby resulting in a net increase in reporting burden. After savings associations make any necessary changes to their systems and records, OTS estimated that these reporting changes would produce an average net increase of 2.0 hours per institution per year in the ongoing reporting burden of the TFR. Nevertheless, when viewing these proposed revisions to the TFR within a larger context, they are intended to maintain the effectiveness of the on- and off-site supervision activities of the OTS, which should help to control the overall regulatory burden on institutions.

On October 1, 2008, OTS requested comment on proposed revisions to the Thrift Financial Report (73 FR 57205). The proposed changes were to be implemented on a phased-in basis during 2009. A limited group of changes was proposed to take effect March 31, 2009; most revisions were proposed to take effect June 30, 2009; and a final group of revisions was proposed to take effect December 31, 2009. 1

OTS received one comment letter on the proposed revisions from a trade group representing banks and savings associations of all sizes. The trade group noted the added burden the proposed revisions would place on institutions filing the TFR and asked that OTS adopt only those changes essential to its mission. The trade group commented on a reporting issue that was not addressed in the original proposal and recommended a revision requiring institutions to report “reciprocal deposits”  2 separately from brokered deposits. OTS will consider this recommendation concerning reciprocal deposits when it next assesses the need and basis for possible future revisions to the TFR. This commenter also commented on the reporting of sweep accounts from other institutions, including affiliated institutions, noting that the TFR may need to be revised depending on the resolution of how such accounts are treated for deposit insurance assessment purposes.

After considering the comments received on the proposal, OTS has decided to move forward with most of the reporting changes, with limited modifications in response to certain comments, on the phased-in basis that had been proposed. Sections III, IV, and V of this notice identify the changes proposed to take effect March 31, June 30, and December 31, 2009, respectively; and discuss the comments received on the proposed TFR revisions that OTS has decided to implement, as modified.

OTS recognizes institutions' need for lead time to prepare for reporting changes, and thus proposed the phased-in implementation schedule for 2009. TFR items that will be new or revised effective March 31, 2009, are limited in number and most are linked to changes in generally accepted accounting principles taking effect at the same time. For the March 31, 2009, report date, thrifts may provide reasonable estimates for any new or revised TFR item initially required to be reported as of that date for which the requested information is not readily available. This same policy on the use of reasonable estimates will apply to the reporting of other new or revised items when they are first implemented effective June 30 and December 31, 2009. The specific wording of the captions for the new or revised TFR line items discussed in this notice and the numbering of these items should be regarded as preliminary.

OTS received no comments on revisions proposed in response to accounting changes applicable to noncontrolling (minority) interests in consolidated subsidiaries; and to a reporting addition for other-than-temporary impairment charges on debt and equity securities. Therefore, these revisions will be implemented in March 2009 as proposed.

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements” (FAS 160). Under this Statement, a noncontrolling interest, formerly referred to as a minority interest, is that portion of total stockholders' equity and total net income or loss that is not attributable, directly or indirectly, to the parent; that is, to the controlling interest. FAS 160 changes the placement of the noncontrolling interest on the balance sheet and income statement. For savings associations and holding companies with a calendar year-end, the Statement becomes effective in the first quarter of 2009. Accordingly, OTS proposes to make certain changes to Schedules SC, SO, HC, and CCR.

1. As a result of the issuance of FAS 160 (see Background above), OTS will eliminate line CCR190, Minority Interest in Includable Subsidiaries.

1. As a result of the issuance of FAS 160 (see Background above), OTS will revise the captions of lines SC80 from “Total Equity Capital” to “Total Savings Association Equity Capital”, SC800 from “Minority Interest” to “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Subsidiaries”, SC90 from “Total Liabilities, Minority Interest, and Equity Capital” to “Total Liabilities and Equity Capital”, SO 91 from “Net Income (Loss)” to “Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Savings Association”, HC620 from “Minority Interest” to “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Subsidiaries”, HC640 from “Consolidated Net Income for the Quarter” to “Consolidated Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Holding Company”, CCR100 from “Total Equity Capital (SC80)” to “Total Equity Capital (SC84)”, and CCR105 from “Minority Interest in Nonincludable Subsidiaries” to “Investments in, Advances to, and Noncontrolling Interests in Nonincludable Subsidiaries”.

1. As a result of the issuance of FAS 160 (see Background above), OTS proposes to add lines SC84, Total Equity Capital; SO88, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Savings Association and Noncontrolling Interests; SO880, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests; and HC635, Consolidated Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Holding Company and Noncontrolling Interests.

2. To separately capture impairment charges on debt and equity securities, OTS proposes to add line SO441, Other-than-Temporary Impairment Charges on Debt and Equity Securities.

OTS has, to this point, provided confidential treatment to some of the information that certain institutions report in Schedule FS—Fiduciary and Related Services, on fiduciary and related services income, settlements, surcharges and other losses reported on lines FS310 through FS35, and FS710 through FS70. OTS also accords confidential treatment to all of the information that certain institutions report in Schedule HC—Thrift Holding Company.

An important public policy issue for the federal banking regulatory agencies has been how to use market discipline to complement supervisory resources. Market discipline relies on market participants having sufficient appropriate information about the financial condition and risks of banks, thrifts, and their holding companies. The TFR is widely used by securities analysts, rating agencies, and large institutional investors as sources of thrift-specific data. Disclosure that increases transparency should lead to more accurate market assessments of individual banks' performance and risks. This, in turn, should result in more effective market discipline on thrifts. For these reasons, we proposed eliminating the confidential treatment of data reported on schedules FS and HC.

The trade group commenting on the proposed revisions opposed eliminating the confidential treatment of fiduciary income and loss data, stating that the agencies' original reason for according confidential treatment to these data, i.e., that these data generally pertain to only a portion of a reporting institution's total operations and not to the institution as a whole, still holds true. This commenter also cited significant competitive concerns with the proposed elimination of confidential treatment because making income and loss data publicly available “may make it possible for competitors to deduce” an individual institution's fee schedules. In addition, this commenter believed that these publicly disclosed data may be subject to misinterpretation by market participants who would lack a proper understanding of the scope of the income and loss data reported in Schedule FS because fiduciary income and loss data are presented differently in institutions' audited financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. Therefore, this commenter believes that institutions' financial statements can satisfy market participants' needs for fiduciary income and loss data. Finally, this commenter stated that market participants may be confused or misled by the fiduciary income and loss information because they would be unable to determine the source or specific fiduciary activity giving rise to the income or loss.

Data on fiduciary and related services income and losses is treated as confidential on an individual institution basis. Nevertheless, OTS publishes aggregate data derived from these confidential items. OTS does not preclude institutions from publicly disclosing the fiduciary and related services income and loss data that the agencies treat as confidential.

In addition, under the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System, the agencies assign a rating to the earnings of an institution's fiduciary activities at those institutions with fiduciary assets of more than $100 million, which are also the institutions that report their fiduciary and related services income and losses in Call Report Schedule RC-T and TFR Schedule FS. The agencies' evaluation of an institution's trust earnings considers such factors as the profitability of fiduciary activities in relation to the size and scope of those activities and the institution's overall business, taking this into account by functions and product lines. Although the agencies' ratings for individual institutions are not publicly available, the reason for rating the trust earnings of institutions with more than $100 million in fiduciary assets—its effect on the financial condition of the institution—means that fiduciary and related services income and loss information for these institutions is also relevant to market participants and others in the public as they seek to evaluate the financial condition and performance of individual institutions. Increasing the transparency of institutions' fiduciary activities by making individual institutions' fiduciary income and loss data available to the public should improve the market's ability to assess these institutions' performance and risks and thereby enhance market discipline.

Although the fiduciary income and loss data currently reported in Schedule FS and afforded confidential treatment apply only to a portion of an institution rather than an entire institution, all other data collected in Schedule FS of the TFR is publicly available, even when the data relates only to portions of an institution's activities.

OTS continues to believe that the benefit of increased transparency from the full disclosure of fiduciary income and loss data will improve market discipline by enhancing the market's ability to assess institution-specific performance and risks. After carefully considering the comments on the public availability of fiduciary income and loss data reported in Schedule FS, OTS is adopting the proposal to eliminate the confidential treatment of such data beginning with the data reported as of March 31, 2009.

The trade group commenting on the proposed revisions recommended a bifurcated approach to eliminating the confidential treatment of Schedule HC data filed by holding companies. The commenter felt that eliminating confidential treatment of Schedule HC data is appropriate for publicly-held thrift holding companies, but should not be eliminated for privately-held thrift holding companies. However, many public requests are received for these data. In addition, some rating agencies have indicated thrift holding company debt ratings suffer due to the lack of publicly available data. Additionally, Federal Reserve Board Schedule Y-9 filed by bank holding companies is publicly available on consolidated and unconsolidated bases for both publicly and privately owned bank holding companies. It is reasonable that OTS should be consistent with the FRB's treatment of holding company financial information.

Thus, after carefully considering the comments on the public availability of Schedule HC data, OTS is adopting the proposal to eliminate the confidential treatment of such data beginning with the data reported as of March 31, 2009.

OTS received no comments related to the following revisions proposed to be effective as of June 2009. Accordingly, these revisions are adopted as proposed.

SI805, Do you sell private-label or third-party mutual funds and annuities?; and

SI860, Fee Income from the Sale and Servicing of Mutual Funds and Annuities.

Line SI805 is a yes/no question regarding the sale of private label or third party mutual funds and annuities. Line SI860 reports the amount of fee income from the sale and servicing of mutual funds and annuities. Institutions that provided a yes response to line SI805 will now provide the same response to new line SI910. OTS believes the data reported in line SI860 can be collected independently of the TFR reporting system during the examination process.

1. Revising the caption for line SO430 from “Noninterest Income—Net Income (Loss) from Other—Sale of Assets Held for Sale and Available-for-Sale Securities” to “Noninterest Income—Net Income (Loss) from Other—Sale of Available-for-Sale Securities” to separately report gains and losses on the sale of available-for-sale securities from gains and losses on loans and leases held for sale and on other assets held for sale. Gains and losses on loans and leases held for sale and on other assets held for sale would be reported in new lines SO431 and SO432 described below; and

2. Revising the language for question HC840 from “Is the holding company or any of its subsidiaries regulated by a foreign financial services regulator?” to “Is the holding company or any of its affiliates conducting operations outside of the U.S. through a foreign branch or subsidiary?” This line is being revised to more fully identify holding companies with foreign operations, including parallel banking operations. A parallel banking organization exists when at least one U.S. bank and one foreign financial institution are controlled either directly or indirectly by the same person or group of persons who are closely associated in their business dealings or otherwise acting together, but are not subject to consolidated supervision by a single home country supervisor. A foreign financial institution includes a holding company of the foreign bank and any U.S. or foreign affiliates of the foreign bank.

OTS proposes to add two lines related to gains and losses on the sale of loans and leases held for sale and on other assets held for sale:

SO431, Noninterest Income—Net Income (Loss) from Other—Sale of Loans and Leases Held for Sale; and

SO432, Noninterest Income—Net Income (Loss) from Other—Sale of Other Assets Held for Sale.

These new lines, in conjunction with the revised line SO430 described above, will allow thrifts to separately report gains and losses on the sale of available-for-sale securities, on loans and leases held for sale, and on other assets held for sale.

OTS proposes to add a series of eight lines to Schedule PD related to loans in the process of foreclosure:

PD40, Total Loans in Process of Foreclosure;

PD415, Construction Loans in Process of Foreclosure;

PD421, 1-4 Dwelling Units Secured by Revolving Open-End Loans in Process of Foreclosure;

PD423, 1-4 Dwelling Units Secured by First Liens in Process of Foreclosure;

PD424, 1-4 Dwelling Units Secured by Junior Liens in Process of Foreclosure;

PD425, Multifamily (5 or more) Dwelling Units in Process of Foreclosure;

PD435, Nonresidential Property (Except Land) in Process of Foreclosure; and

PD438, Land Loans in Process of Foreclosure.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on the various types of real estate loans in the process of foreclosure. With these new data items, OTS will be better able to monitor the asset quality and risk profiles of thrifts.

Thrifts would report total unpaid principal balance of loans secured by the various types of real estate for which formal foreclosure proceedings to seize the real estate collateral have started and are ongoing as of quarter-end, regardless of the date the foreclosure procedure was initiated. Loans would be classified as in process of foreclosure according to local requirements.

OTS proposes to add a series of six lines to Schedule LD related to construction loans with capitalized interest:

LD710, Construction Loans on 1—4 Dwelling Units with Capitalized Interest;

LD715, Capitalized Interest on Construction Loans on 1—4 Dwelling Units Included in Current Quarter Income;

LD720, Construction Loans on Multifamily (5 or More) Dwelling Units with Capitalized Interest;

LD725, Capitalized Interest on Construction Loans on Multifamily (5 or More) Dwelling Units Included in Current Quarter Income;

LD730, Construction Loans on Nonresidential Property (Except Land) with Capitalized Interest; and

LD735, Capitalized Interest on Construction Loans on Nonresidential Property (Except Land) Included in Current Quarter Income.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on the use of capitalized interest in connection with various types of construction loans. With these new data items, OTS will be better able to monitor the risk profiles of thrifts with concentrations of construction loans.

OTS proposes to add a series of six lines to Schedule LD to provide additional reporting detail on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSs):

LD750, Collateralized Debt Obligations: Carrying Value;

LD755, Collateralized Debt Obligations: Market Value;

LD760, Collateralized Loan Obligations: Carrying Value;

LD765, Collateralized Loan Obligations: Market Value;

LD770, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities: Carrying Value; and

LD775, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities: Market Value.

CDOs are a type of asset-backed security and structured credit product. CDOs are constructed from a portfolio of fixed-income assets that are pooled together and passed on to different classes of owners.

CLOs are a type of asset-backed security and structured credit product. CLOs are structured from a portfolio of nonmortgage business loans that are pooled together and passed on to different classes of owners.

CMBSs are a type of asset-backed security and structured credit product. CMBSs are structured from a portfolio of commercial mortgage loans that are pooled together and passed on to different classes of owners.

OTS proposes to add two lines to Schedule CC related to recourse obligations on loans in CC468, Amount of Recourse Obligations on Assets in CC455 (Line CC455 is the Total Principal Amount of Assets Covered by Recourse Obligations or Direct Credit Substitutes):

CC469, Amount of Recourse Obligations on Loans in CC468 where Recourse Is Limited to 120 Days or Less; and

CC471, Amount of Recourse Obligations on Loans in CC468 where Recourse Extends Beyond 120 Days.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on the amount of assets with recourse obligations held by thrifts.

OTS proposes to add two lines to Schedule CF related to loans sold during the current reporting period with recourse obligations:

CF365, Memo—Loans Sold with Recourse of 120 Days or Less; and

CF366, Memo—Loans Sold with Recourse Greater Than 120 Days.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on the quarterly amount of loans sold with recourse obligations held by thrifts.

At the request of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for deposit assessment-related purposes, the OTS proposes to add the following seven lines to Schedule DI:

DI630, Unsecured Federal Funds Purchased;

DI635, Secured Federal Funds Purchased;

DI641, Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase;

DI645, Unsecured “Other Borrowings”—With a Remaining Maturity of One Year or Less;

DI651, Unsecured “Other Borrowings”—With a Remaining Maturity of Over One Year;

DI655, Subordinated Debentures—With a Remaining Maturity of One Year or Less; and

DI660, Subordinated Debentures—With a Remaining Maturity of Over One Year.

The additional reporting detail by maturity is proposed as the FDIC plans to provide a reduction in assessment rates to institutions with longer-term unsecured borrowings and subordinated debt. The FDIC believes that such borrowing and debt will likely remain when an institution fails, thus providing a cushion to help protect the Deposit Insurance Fund.

The trade group commenting on the proposed revisions expressed support for the reporting of maturity distributions of unsecured other borrowings and subordinated debt on Schedule DI, stating that the data would enable the FDIC to implement an adjustment to the risk-based assessment system so that insured depository institutions with greater amounts of general unsecured long-term liabilities could be rewarded with a lower assessment rate.

OTS proposes to add two lines to Schedule SI related to loans and securities pledged as collateral for loans:

SI394, Pledged Loans; and

SI395, Pledged Trading Assets.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on the amount of loans and securities pledged by thrifts as collateral for loans. These data items will permit OTS to better monitor the risk profiles of thrifts with concentrations of pledged loans and securities and are consistent with reporting being added to the Call Report in 2009.

OTS proposes to add the following four new questions to Schedule SI:

SI900, “Does the institution, without trust powers, act as trustee or custodian for Individual Retirement Accounts, Health Savings Accounts, and other similar accounts that are invested in non-deposit products?”;

SI905, “Does the institution provide custody, safekeeping or other services involving the acceptance of orders for the sale or purchase of securities?”;

SI910, “Does the institution engage in third party broker arrangements, commonly referred to as “networking”, to sell securities products or services to thrift customers?”; and

SI915, “Does the institution sweep deposit funds into any open-end investment management company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that holds itself out as a money market fund?”.

The questions relate to certain brokerage activities such as whether a thrift is a trustee or custodian for certain types of accounts or provides certain services in connection with orders for securities transactions regardless of whether the thrift exercises trust powers.

OTS proposes to add a series of 30 lines to Schedule HC to provide additional detailed data on the thrift holding company parent and on a consolidated basis:

HC221, Parent Only Perpetual Preferred Stock: Cumulative;

HC222, Parent Only Perpetual Preferred Stock: Noncumulative;

HC223, Parent Only Common Stock: Par Value;

HC224, Parent Only Common Stock: Paid in Excess of Par;

HC225, Parent Only Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Available-for-Sale Securities;

HC226, Parent Only Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Gains (Losses) on Cash Flow Hedges;

HC227, Parent Only Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Other;

HC228, Parent Only Retained Earnings;

HC229, Parent Only Other Components of Equity Capital;

HC301, Parent Only Cash, Deposits, and Investment Securities;

HC505, Parent Only Interest Income;

HC509, Parent Only Total Income;

HC570, Parent Only Total Expense;

HC571, Parent Only Total Income Taxes;

HC575, Parent Only Dividends Paid;

HC601, Consolidated Cash, Deposits, and Investment Securities;

HC621, Consolidated Perpetual Preferred Stock: Cumulative;

HC622, Consolidated Perpetual Preferred Stock: Noncumulative;

HC623, Consolidated Common Stock: Par Value;

HC624, Consolidated Common Stock: Paid in Excess of Par;

HC625, Consolidated Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Available-for-Sale Securities;

HC626, Consolidated Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Gains (Losses) on Cash Flow Hedges;

HC627, Consolidated Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income: Other;

HC628, Consolidated Only Retained Earnings;

HC629, Consolidated Only Other Components of Equity Capital.

HC705, Consolidated Interest Income;

HC709, Consolidated Total Income;

HC770, Consolidated Total Expense;

HC771, Consolidated Total Income Taxes; and

HC775, Consolidated Dividends Paid.

OTS believes these new line items will provide additional detail on thrift holding companies. With these new data items, OTS will be better able to monitor the risk profiles of thrift holding companies.

OTS received comments addressing each of the following proposed June 30, 2009, revisions:

OTS proposes to add a line, VA979, Credit Card Charge-Offs Related to Accrued Interest, to capture data on the amount of credit card charge-offs that are due to accrued interest. This change is being made at the request of the FDIC to improve their deposit insurance premium assessment process.

The commenter noted that compliance with this new line item would be difficult for those thrift institutions (including those that use a third-party processor for servicing credit cards) that do not presently capture data on the amount of credit card charge-offs that are due to accrued interest. Since that specific charge-off data is not currently required to be reported on the TFR, the accrued interest is sometimes added to the credit card loan amount and is not tracked as a separate line item. Not all thrift institutions that offer credit cards to their customers have the proposed data readily available within the thrift institution or from their third-party processor to separately report the accrued interest portion of the charge-off.

The commenter expressed concern that third-party credit card processors may not be able to readily provide the new data on the amount of credit card charge-offs that are due to accrued interest.

After considering these comments, OTS has decided to move forward with the addition as proposed. OTS believes that the data to be added should presently be available within an institution's accounting systems.

The commenter noted generally the need for OTS to provide clear instructions for the revisions to be implemented in 2009. Specifically, the commenter recommended that OTS provide clear instructions for the 16 new line items presented below being added to Schedule LD related to high loan-to-value loans secured by multifamily properties without private mortgage insurance (PMI) or government guarantee:

LD111, High Loan-to-Value Loans Secured by Multifamily Properties without PMI or Government Guarantee: Balances at Quarter-End: 90% up to 100% LTV;

LD121, High Loan-to-Value Loans Secured by Multifamily Properties without PMI or Government Guarantee: Balances at Quarter-End: 100% and greater LTV;

LD211, High Loan-to-Value Loans Secured by Multifamily Properties without PMI or Government Guarantee: Past Due and Nonaccrual Balances: Past Due and Still Accruing: 30-89 Days: 90% up to 100% LTV;