44772 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

all potential effects of the actions 

(debits) as well as the credits accrued 

and used to offset the effects and 

provide a jeopardy analysis for listed 

species and destruction/adverse 

modification analysis for designated 

critical habitat if applicable. The 

consultation would consider all listed 

species that may be affected, not just the 

target species, and any designated 

critical habitat occurring in the action 

area for the jeopardy/adverse 

modification analysis. 

The programmatic biological opinion 

may not be able to describe take at the 

programmatic level. In this case, the 

specific take authorization and 

associated reasonable and prudent 

measures and terms and conditions 

would be described in site-specific 

biological opinions. If the overarching 

biological opinion can describe, with 

appropriate documentation from the 

action agency, the project-specific 

actions, then a list of reasonable and 

prudent measures and terms and 

conditions can be included, and no 

additional opinion is needed for those 

actions. The Service must develop 

reasonable and prudent measures and 

terms and conditions in close 

coordination with the action agency. 

This coordination may identify specific 

measures the action agency will 

incorporate at the project-specific level. 

C. Project-Specific Consultation 

As individual projects are proposed, 

the action agency provides projectspecific information as described in the 

programmatic biological opinion. This 

information should include, but not be 

limited to, the specific areas to be 

affected, the species and critical habitat 

that may be affected, a description of 

anticipated effects (in reference to those 

already analyzed in the programmatic 

biological opinion), a description of any 

additional effects not considered in the 

programmatic consultation, appropriate 

reasonable and prudent measures and 

terms and conditions, the resulting 

debits as ranked in the programmatic 

opinion, and the credit balance resulting 

from the action. The project-level 

consultation should be an expedited 

process because most of the needed 

analysis will have occurred at the 

programmatic level. This is an added 

incentive for Federal agencies to use 

programmatic consultation and recovery 

crediting. 

V. Monitoring 

A monitoring program is essential to 

the success and the credibility of an 

RCS, both for the crediting and debiting 

aspects of the process. The scope of the 

monitoring plan should be 

commensurate with the crediting 

system’s recovery framework, based on 

the goals and objectives of the species’

recovery plan; the monitoring should 

measure the objectives as implemented 

by the crediting system. Ultimately, the 

Federal action agency is responsible for 

accounting for credits and compliance 

with the debiting process as determined 

through the programmatic biological 

opinion. However, the Service will 

provide technical assistance in the 

monitoring plan and contribute to the 

monitoring process through the 

development of terms and conditions 

within biological opinions, as well as 

reviewing and providing concurrence, if 

warranted, under project-specific 

consultations. Additionally, the Service 

will be responsible for periodic review 

of the species’ environmental status, 

either through an established protocol 

or more conventional methods (e.g., 

5-year review, programmatic biological 

opinions, etc.). 

In general, monitoring may comprise 

two elements: effectiveness monitoring 

and compliance monitoring. 

Effectiveness monitoring will evaluate 

the credit valuation and accrual process 

in achieving the goals and objectives of 

recovery actions. This monitoring 

focuses on the crediting process, 

involves principles of adaptive 

management, and includes all 

implementation partners. The 

responsibility of effectiveness 

monitoring belongs to the Federal 

agency that accrues and holds credits, 

although other entities would be 

involved. When the credit accrual 

process results in a biological opinion 

from the Service, effectiveness 

monitoring provisions are part of the 

project description. Any coverage under 

the incidental take statement, therefore, 

is dependent on the action agency 

carrying out the action as described in 

the project description. 

Compliance monitoring audits and 

accounts for credits and debits and 

ensures proper implementation of the 

agency action. Any monitoring and 

reporting must be incorporated into the 

project description as an integral part of 

implementing the RCS. 

Although an RCS is a focused tool for 

Federal agencies to make a positive 

contribution towards the recovery of 

listed species while creating flexibility 

for offsetting effects of their other 

actions, the Service encourages the 

development and use of other types of 

crediting systems to meet other needs 

and circumstances. In addition, this 

guidance by no means restricts Federal 

agencies from developing or using other 

crediting systems such as conservation 

banks. An RCS is one method by which 

a Federal agency may contribute 

towards its section 7(a)(1) 

responsibilities. The Service encourages 

Federal agencies to develop other 

programs that would also contribute to 

the recovery of listed species on Federal 

and non-Federal lands. 

VI. References 

The following is a list of documents 

that would be useful for establishing an 

RCS. Some are in draft form, but are 

readily available to Service personnel 

through Regional Offices or the 

Washington Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Policies 

and guidelines for planning and 

coordinating recovery of endangered and 

threatened species. Washington, DC. 

14pp. + appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final 

Safe Harbor Policy. 64 FR 32717, June 

17, 1999. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. 

Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and 

Operation of Conservation Banks. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation 

Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 

Section 7 Consultations and 

Conferences. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 2004 (updated 

2006). Draft Endangered and Threatened 

Species Recovery Planning Guidance. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 

2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. 

Department of the Interior Technical 

Guide. Adaptive Management Working 

Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Authority The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–17579 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Intersocietal 

Accreditation Commission 

Notice is hereby given that, on June 

25, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Intersocietal 

Accreditation Commission (‘‘IAC’’) has 

filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing (1) the name and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44773 

principal place of business of the 

standards development organization 

and (2) the nature and scope of its 

standards development activities. The 

notifications were filed for the purpose 

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting 

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 

actual damages under specified 

circumstances. 

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, 

the name and principal place of 

business of the standards development 

organization is: Intersocietal 

Accreditation Commission, Columbia, 

MD. The nature and scope of IAC’s 

standards development activities are: 

the development of consensus standards 

for quality assurance in diagnostic 

imaging facilities, thus improving the 

quality of patient care provided in 

private offices clinics and hospitals 

where such medical tests are provided. 

The IAC develops consensus standards 

in the following categories: (a) 

Accreditation of vascular laboratories 

(extracranial cerebrovascular, 

intracranial cerebrovascular, peripheral 

arterial, peripheral venous, visceral 

vascular, screening), (b) accreditation of 

echocardiography laboratories (adult 

transthoracic, adult transesophageal, 

adult stress, pediatric transthoracic, 

pediatric transesophageal, fetal), (c) 

accreditation of nuclear medicine 

laboratories (nuclear cardiology, general 

nuclear medicine, PET), (d) 

accreditation of magnetic resonance 

laboratories (body [pelvis, abdomen, 

chest, and/or breast], cardiovascular, 

musculoskeletal, neurological), and (e) 

accreditation of computed tomography 

laboratories (cardiovascular, whole 

body, neurological, sinus and temporal 

bone). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–17509 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993 Advanced Media Workflow 

Association, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on June 

27, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Advanced Media 

Workflow Association, Inc., has filed 

written notifications simultaneously 

with the Attorney General and the 

Federal Trade Commission disclosing 

changes in its membership. The 

notifications were filed for the purpose 

of extending the Act’s provisions 

limiting the recovery of antitrust 

plaintiffs to actual damages under 

specified circumstances. Specifically, 

Integrated Media Technologies, North 

Hollywood, CA; and Nielsen, Westport, 

CT, have been added as parties to this 

venture. Also, Convergent Media Labs, 

Marina del Rey, CA has withdrawn as 

a party to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and Advanced 

Media Workflow Association, Inc., 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media 

Workflow Association, Inc., filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on March 21, 2008. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21984). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–17507 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 7, 

2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) has 

filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing additions or 

changes to its standards development 

activities. The notifications were filed 

for the purpose of extending the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, 33 new standards have 

been initiated and 13 existing standards 

are being revised. More detail regarding 

these changes can be found at http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

16-05-08.html and http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

06-12-08.html. In addition, an update to 

the registration activities associated 

with 21 existing standards is being 

submitted. More detail regarding this 

update can be found at http:// 

standards.ieee.org/regauth/ 

registrystandards.html. 

On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on May 9, 2008. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34327). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–17511 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993 Petroleum Environmental 

Research Forum 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 9, 

2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Petroleum 

Environmental Research Forum 

(‘‘PERF’’) has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, The Questor Centre, 

Belfast, Northern Ireland, UNITED 

KINGDOM has been added as a party to 

this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and PERF intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES