26076 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Notices 

alternative, in addition to 4 and 5 may 

affect the appraised value. 

Alternative 4: This alternative would 

be the same as Alternative 3 but would 

not include the road easement. Like 

Alternative 3, this alternative is 

responsive to the concerns expressed by 

trail users and will help address visual 

concerns. 

Alternative 5: This alternative would 

not include a substantial portion of the 

federal parcel, as described in the 

proposed alternative. The alternative is 

designed to preserve major portions of 

the wagon road and some wetlands. 

This alternative would not include the 

road easement and more directly 

addresses cultural and recreation 

concerns. A trade-off of this alternative 

is that acquisition of both large nonFederal parcels may not be possible due 

to the requirement that the exchange be 

equal value. 

Responsible Official 

Mark W. Stiles, Center Manager, San 

Juan Public Lands, 15 Burnett Court, 

Durango, CO 81301. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

Given the purpose and need, the 

deciding official reviews the proposed 

action and the other alternatives in 

order to make the following decisions: 

Will the proposed land exchange occur 

as proposed, as modified under the 

various alternatives, or not at all. If the 

exchange proceeds what mitigation 

measures will the Forest Service apply 

to the project? 

Scoping Process 

Formal scoping has already occurred 

on this project as described above; 

comments received indicate that there 

may be significant impacts for which an 

EIS is the appropriate level of analysis. 

Informal scoping responses may be 

submitted to Cindy Hockelberg (contact 

information above), if there is an issue 

that has not been identified. 

Preliminary Issues 

During review of all public comments 

and internal input, the Forest Service 

has identified the following concerns or 

issues with the proposal: Recreation, 

particularly with regard to Chris Park 

campground and the trails that have 

been created in the area; The Animas 

Wagon road and its historical status; 

Socio-economic issues related to 

tourism and special use permittees who 

use the area; Visual impacts to those 

areas that are sensitive, including 

Highway 550 and Chris Park 

Campground; Wildlife impacts that may 

occur to a potential wildlife corridor on 

the Federal parcel; Wetlands and 

hydrology, particularly with regard to 

quality of wetlands on all parcels; and 

how the non-Federal parcels will be 

managed if they are acquired. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for comment. The comment 

period on the draft environmental 

impact statement will be 45 days from 

the date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes the notice of 

availability in the Federal Register. This 

is expected to occur around September 

2008. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 45 

day comment period so that comments 

and objections are made available to the 

Forest Service at a time when it can 

meaningfully consider them and 

respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21. 

Dated: May 1, 2008. 

Mark W. Stiles, 

Center Manager. 

[FR Doc. E8–10223 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: NOAA Satellite Ground Station 

Customer Questionnaire. 

Form Number(s): None. 

OMB Approval Number: 0648–0227. 

Type of Request: Regular submission. 

Burden Hours: 17. 

Number of Respondents: 102. 

Average Hours per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Needs and Uses: NOAA requests 

people who operate ground receiving 

stations that receive data from NOAA 

satellites to complete a questionnaire 

about the types of data received, its use, 

the equipment involved, and similar 

subjects. The data obtained are used by 

NOAA for short-term operations and 

long-term planning. The collection of 

this data assists NOAA in complying 

with the terms of the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the World 

Meteorological Organization 

Administration (NOAA) and other 

international agreements. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions; individuals or households; 

State, Local or Tribal Government. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, 

(202) 395–3897. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Notices 26077 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk 

Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: May 5, 2008. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–10226 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

Proposal for Available Alternative Site–

Designation and Management 

Framework 

SUMMARY: The Foreign–Trade Zones 

(FTZ) Board is inviting public comment 

on a staff proposal to make available an 

alternative framework for participating 

grantees to designate and manage their 

general–purpose FTZ sites. A key result 

of this proposal, which stems from a 

series of regional and state–level 

discussions with FTZ grantees that 

began in April 2007, would be greater 

flexibility and predictability for a 

participating grantee to use 

administrative ‘‘minor boundary 

modifications’’ (MBMs) to modify FTZ 

sites. The greater flexibility would be 

made possible by participating grantees’

increased focus on the FTZ sites needed 

for current or near–term zone activity, 

with a resulting improvement in the 

efficiency of FTZ oversight by 

government agencies. The availability of 

this alternative framework would affect 

only participating FTZ grantees and 

would occur within the existing 

statutory and regulatory context 

(including the role of the local CBP port 

director relative to any application for 

Board action or MBM request). 

Background: 

Under the FTZ Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 

81a–81u), the FTZ Board may authorize 

FTZ sites sponsored by local ‘‘grantee’’

organizations at locations within or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) ports of entry. Under 

the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board’s 

regulations (15 CFR Part 400), FTZ 

designation for a particular parcel or site 

may result either from an application for 

action by the FTZ Board or from a 

request for an administrative MBM 

action by the FTZ Board staff. The 

regulatory time frame for such FTZ 

Board actions is ten months versus a 

thirty-day time frame for administrative 

MBM actions, and there are significantly 

greater documentation requirements 

associated with applications for Board 

action than for requests for 

administrative action. 

The FTZ Act gives the FTZ Board 

broad authority and discretion. In this 

context, the Board’s 1991 regulations 

delineate criteria for evaluation of 

applications for Board action and 

requests for administrative action to 

authorize FTZ designation for new 

parcels or sites. The applicable 

regulatory criteria are general in nature 

and the Board’s existing approach 

(practice) for MBMs and FTZ 

designation for new parcels or sites pre–

dates both the enormous growth in 

international trade of recent decades 

and the significant evolution in trade–

related security and oversight 

responsibilities within government 

since 2001. 

Within the FTZ program itself, 

increased demand for rapid action 

regarding new FTZ parcels or sites is 

tied to an accelerated pace of decision–

making among the types of businesses 

that constitute the ultimate users of the 

program. The program’s ability to react 

to business needs in a timely manner is 

inextricably linked to the program’s 

success in helping to retain or enhance 

U.S.-based activity. In this context, an 

alternative approach to MBMs and site 

management for grantees in need of 

greater flexibility and responsiveness 

can be important in fulfilling the FTZ 

program’s purpose ‘‘to expedite and 

encourage foreign commerce.’’

Proposal: The fundamental trade–off 

addressed in this proposal is greater 

flexibility and increased predictability 

for approval of FTZ sites through simple 

and rapid MBM actions in exchange for 

a grantee maximizing the linkage 

between designation of FTZ space and 

actual use of that space for FTZ activity 

(after ‘‘activation’’ by CBP). Maximizing 

this linkage can further other important 

program–related goals, including more 

efficient use of both FTZ Board and CBP 

resources. 

Although the proposed alternative 

framework could be available to new or 

existing grantees, the major benefit 

would likely be for existing grantees 

who seek to enhance their ability to 

respond to evolving FTZ–related needs 

in their communities. Under this 

proposal, existing or potential grantees 

would have the option of applying to 

establish or reorganize their FTZ by 

incorporating in an application for FTZ 

Board action elements from the 

following framework: 

1. The ‘‘service area’’ within which 

the grantee intends to be able to 

propose FTZ sites (e.g., specific 

counties, with documented support 

from new counties if the service 

area reflected a broader focus than 

the FTZ’s current area served). The 

term ‘‘service area’’ applies a name 

to a concept which already exists in 

certain approved FTZ applications 

in which a grantee organization has 

named the localities it intends to 

serve. It should be noted that any 

service area would need to be 

consistent with the ‘‘adjacency’’

requirement of the FTZ Board’s 

regulations (60 miles/90 minutes 

driving time from CBP Port of Entry 

boundaries). 

2. An initial limit of up to 2,000 acres 

of designated FTZ space within the 

service area. Given the proposal’s 

focus on linking FTZ designation 

more closely to FTZ activity, the 

2,000–acre limit reflects the FTZ 

Board’s existing practice of limiting 

any FTZ grantee to activation of 

2,000 acres (regardless of the overall 

size of the grantee’s zone) unless 

further approval is obtained from 

the FTZ Board. Acreage within the 

2,000–acre limit which had not 

been applied to specific designated 

sites would effectively be ‘‘reserve’’

acreage available for future FTZ 

designation for parcels or sites 

within the grantee’s approved 

service area. 

3. Enhancement of the usefulness of 

the 2,000 available acres by 

emphasizing ‘‘floating’’ acreage 

within an individual site’s 

boundaries (as has been the FTZ 

Board’s practice with certain 

applications to date). For example, 

100 acres of ‘‘floating’’ FTZ 

designation within the boundaries 

of a 700–acre port complex would 

mean that it would be possible to 

activate with CBP up to 100 acres 

of total space anywhere within that 

700–acre complex. 

4. Mandatory designation of a primary 

‘‘anchor’’ FTZ site able to attract 

multiple FTZ users. No ‘‘sunset’’

time limit (see below) would apply 

to the anchor site. The anchor site 

would generally be no more than 

500 acres (which could be 

‘‘floating’’ acres within larger site 

boundaries see above). A grantee’s 

anchor site would be designated 

through the full application process 

for FTZ Board action. 

5. Possible designation of a limited 

number of ‘‘magnet’’ sites selected 

by the grantee often through local 

public processes for ability and 

readiness to attract multiple FTZ 

users. An individual magnet site 

would generally be limited to 200 

‘‘floating’’ acres. A magnet site 

could only be designated through 

an application for FTZ Board 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES