[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44721-44725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17588]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8697-3]


Findings of Informal Review of the State of Michigan's Approved 
Clean Water Act Section 404 Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice announces EPA's findings from its informal review 
of the state of Michigan's approved Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 
program. EPA finds that, at this time, formal program withdrawal 
proceedings should not be initiated for Michigan's approved CWA Section 
404 program. EPA's Final Report of this review is now available. EPA 
has identified several deficiencies in Michigan's approved CWA Section 
404 program; those are identified in the Final Report along with 
corrective actions which Michigan has proposed to take and a schedule 
for implementing the corrective actions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Elston, Watersheds and Wetlands 
Branch, at the EPA address noted above or by telephone at (312) 886-
6115. The Final Report containing EPA's findings is available via the 
Internet at the following location: http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/wshednps/notices.htm. In addition, a hard copy of the information 
supporting today's notice is available for review at EPA Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, 16th floor, Chicago, Illinois and Library of 
Michigan, 702 Kalamazoo Street, Lansing, Michigan. To arrange for 
access to the docket materials in Chicago call (312) 886-6115 or in 
Lansing call (517) 373-1300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 16, 1984, EPA approved the regulatory permitting program 
that the state of Michigan had submitted pursuant to the requirements 
and guidelines contained in Subsections 404(g) and 404(h) of the CWA. 
33 U.S.C. 1344(g) and (h) (See 49 FR 38947, October 2, 1984.) In that 
notice of approval, EPA noted that the Administrator was required to 
approve a program submitted by a state pursuant to Subsection 404(g) of 
the CWA unless that program does not meet the requirements of 
Subsection 404(h) of the CWA. EPA stated in the notice that it had 
determined the program submitted by the state of Michigan met those 
statutory requirements. The components of the approved CWA Section 404 
program are stated at 40 CFR 233.70.
    The Michigan state agency authorized in 1984 to administer the 
approved CWA Section 404 program was the Department of Natural 
Resources. Later the state of Michigan reorganized its agencies and 
transferred authority to administer the approved CWA Section 404 
program to the Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). EPA approved 
this transfer on November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61173, November 14, 1997).
    On February 4, 1997 EPA received a request to review claims that 
Michigan's approved CWA Section 404 program had serious deficiencies 
and to either insist Michigan take specific remedial measures or 
withdraw Michigan's administration of CWA Section 404. EPA decided to 
treat the request as a petition to withdraw program approval and to 
informally review all aspects of Michigan's approved CWA Section 404 
program. The EPA Regional Administrator of Region 5 informed the 
Director of MDEQ of the commencement of the CWA Section 404 program 
review in a letter dated January 22, 1998.

II. Overview of EPA Review of Michigan's CWA Section 404 Program

    The scope of EPA's informal review included MDEQ permit processing,

[[Page 44722]]

decision making, and enforcement of Section 404 permits; and a 
comprehensive review of the adequacy of Michigan's current legal 
authorities which establish Michigan's CWA Section 404 program. EPA's 
review included materials submitted by MDEQ between June 1999 and the 
date of this Notice. Those materials included an updated program 
description (40 CFR 233.11); a new Michigan Attorney General statement 
confirming that state laws and regulations provide adequate authority 
to administer the CWA Section 404 program and addressing the other 
subjects mentioned at 40 CFR 233.12; and a compilation of all current, 
relevant Michigan laws and regulations. During its program review EPA 
reviewed hundreds of permitting files, enforcement files, and citizen 
complaint files that MDEQ generated between 1995 and 1999. 
Additionally, EPA reviewed MDEQ written decisions issued in contested 
permitting cases between January 1994 and early 1999. The contested 
case decisions represent final agency action by MDEQ in matters 
involving individual permits processed under the approved CWA Section 
404 program. Also as part of the program review, EPA consulted with 
offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) which interact with MDEQ during its 
administration of the program. Finally, during January and May of 1999, 
EPA held four availability sessions to receive comments from interested 
persons.
    In November 2002, EPA completed its preliminary review and analysis 
of all materials and concluded that the review findings did not warrant 
a recommendation to the Administrator to initiate formal program 
withdrawal proceedings, but did warrant corrective actions by the state 
of Michigan. EPA's preliminary findings and the necessary corrective 
actions were identified in the document titled Results of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Review of Michigan Department 
of Environmental Quality's Section 404 Program (Preliminary Report). 
EPA announced its preliminary findings in a Federal Register Notice 
published on January 7, 2003 (68 FR 772, January 7, 2003). EPA invited 
public comment, for a period of sixty (60) days, on that notice and the 
Preliminary Report. In a November 7, 2003 letter to the EPA Regional 
Administrator of Region 5, the Director of MDEQ responded to the 
content of EPA's Preliminary Report and proposed a series of corrective 
actions to be undertaken by the state in order to achieve and maintain 
full consistency with the CWA Section 404 program requirements. EPA 
completed its review of the submitted public comments, communicated 
further with Michigan, and performed additional analysis both as 
prompted by public comments and as considered appropriate by EPA. EPA 
has also completed its review and analysis of the corrective actions 
proposed by MDEQ. EPA's final findings are presented in the document 
titled--Results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 
Review of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Section 404 
Program (Final Report).
    EPA found both strengths and deficiencies in Michigan's legal 
authorities establishing the approved CWA Section 404 program and in 
the program's administration by MDEQ. EPA has concluded that program 
withdrawal proceedings should not be initiated at this time. However, 
this Notice and the Final Report are not EPA's final action on the 
petition to withdraw. Within 36 months of the date of this notice, EPA 
will review all corrective actions completed by Michigan and determine 
whether initiating formal withdrawal proceedings is warranted. A 
summary of the major program deficiencies identified by EPA and the 
corrective actions proposed by the state follow; a more detailed 
analysis is contained in the Final Report. EPA considers the schedule 
for completion of the corrective actions to be reasonable and has 
adopted it in the Final Report.

III. Deficiencies in Michigan's CWA Section 404 Program and Proposed 
Corrective Actions

A. CWA Jurisdiction

    EPA had concerns that the scope of jurisdiction provided by 
Michigan law was not as broad as federal CWA Section 404 jurisdiction. 
One major concern was that Michigan had not completed its wetland 
inventories and Michigan law did not extend jurisdiction over non-
contiguous wetlands in any county in Michigan that had a population of 
less than 100,000 residents unless a wetland inventory was performed. 
Michigan made the commitment to perform wetland inventories in all 
counties with less than 100,000 residents. In January 2007, Michigan 
certified that MDEQ had completed the statewide wetland inventory.
    During EPA's program review the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 
decisions which address jurisdiction over waters of the United States 
under the CWA. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC); Rapanos v. United 
States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). EPA considered those decisions when 
reviewing Michigan's CWA Section 404 program.
    EPA completed its review of the jurisdictional scope of Michigan's 
approved CWA Section 404 program, considering the fact Michigan 
completed its statewide wetland inventory, the recent U.S. Supreme 
Court decisions and additional factors outlined in the Final Report. 
EPA finds the scope of jurisdiction provided by Michigan law is at 
least as broad as the scope of federal CWA Section 404 jurisdiction.

B. Exemptions From CWA Jurisdiction

    Michigan law appears to exempt a broader range of activities than 
does the CWA under Subsection 404(f), including exemptions for 
discharges occurring as part of certain agricultural activities; 
discharges related to drain creation and improvement; and discharges 
associated with iron and copper mining tailings basins. There is no 
federal exemption for these activities. MDEQ has agreed to seek 
amendment of Part 303, the state's Wetlands Protection Act, to: (1) 
Limit the exemptions available under M.C.L. Section 324.30305(2)(e) to 
areas of established agricultural or silvicultural operations in 
accordance with federal law; (2) delete the exemption of agricultural 
drainage under M.C.L. Section 324.30305(2)(j); (3) amend M.C.L. Section 
324.30305(2)(h) to delete mention of straightening, widening or 
deepening; (4) eliminate the exemption for iron and copper mining 
tailings basins under M.C.L. Section 324.30305(2)(o); and (5) delete 
exemption for utility and maintenance activities found at M.C.L. 
Sections 324.30305(2)(l) and (m) to the extent these activities are 
regulated under CWA Section 404. MDEQ has committed to initiating these 
corrective actions within 6 months of the date of this Notice and 
completing these corrective actions within 36 months of the date of 
this Notice.

C. Minor Permits Under Part 301

    EPA is concerned that Part 301's provisions for minor permits do 
not ensure that each minor permit category will cause only minimal 
adverse environmental effects when performed separately and will have 
only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment as required 
under the federal law. MDEQ has agreed to promulgate a new Part 301 
rule

[[Page 44723]]

requiring the consideration of cumulative impacts before new minor 
permit categories are established. MDEQ has agreed to promulgate the 
rule within 24 months of the date of this Notice.

D. CWA 401(b)(1) Guidelines

    EPA is concerned that Michigan law fails to incorporate the CWA 
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines into its permit decision making process. 
One element of EPA's concern is the absence from Michigan law of a 
clear prohibition on the issuance of permits that will jeopardize the 
continued existence of a threatened or endangered (T & E) species or 
their critical habitat, as required by the CWA Section 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines. During the course of this program review, MDEQ developed 
administrative rules under Part 303 which have addressed some of EPA's 
concerns regarding the application of a feasible and prudent 
alternatives analysis, water dependency analysis, and burdens of proof. 
MDEQ has now proposed to implement a more comprehensive corrective 
action by promulgating administrative rules for Parts 301 and 303 that 
will incorporate the federal Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines by reference. 
MDEQ has agreed to promulgate these rules within 24 months of the date 
of this Notice.

E. Public Participation in Permitting Process

    A state that is administering a CWA Section 404 program must 
provide an opportunity for public participation in the state's 
enforcement process by fulfilling the requirements of either 40 CFR 
233.41(e)(1) or (e)(2). While MDEQ has stated that it will comply with 
40 CFR 233.41(e)(2), EPA finds that Michigan's laws and rules do not 
clearly require the state to observe two of the three public 
participation requirements of 40 CFR 233.41(e)(2). To correct this 
situation, MDEQ has agreed to work with EPA to revise the EPA-MDEQ 
Memorandum of Agreement to contain two additional commitments: (1) MDEQ 
will not oppose intervention by any citizen when permissive 
intervention in a state enforcement action is authorized by Michigan 
law, and (2) MDEQ will ensure that all proposed settlement agreements 
of enforcement actions filed in state court are publicly noticed with a 
30-day public comment period provided.

F. General Administration of CWA Section 404 Program

    The program review found that in general, MDEQ is doing a good job 
of administering its CWA Section 404 program, however, EPA did identify 
several problems. EPA identified the need for MDEQ to modify its 
procedures for providing public notice of certain permit-related 
actions to make these procedures consistent with 40 CFR 233.32. EPA 
alerted MDEQ that it needs to ensure that interested persons receive 
public notices of permitting actions with enough time to provide 
comment, and that it needs to ensure that all adjacent property owners 
receive copies of the public notices. During this program review, MDEQ 
addressed the first problem by developing an internet-based system that 
makes public notices more readily available to the public. MDEQ has 
addressed the second problem by providing public notices to all 
adjacent landowners, not just riparian landowners.

G. Endangered Species Act

    EPA found that coordination under the federal Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) is effective for larger projects. Yet our review found that 
it was not clear that minor permit projects were being effectively 
screened for potential impacts on T & E species. MDEQ has worked with 
the USFWS and EPA to develop procedures for screening minor and walk-in 
permits for the potential to impact T & E species and their critical 
habitat. These procedures will be finalized within 6 months of the date 
of this Notice.

H. Enforcement

    The program review concludes that MDEQ has maintained a 
satisfactory enforcement program. MDEQ has designed the enforcement 
program to identify un-permitted activities and initiates enforcement 
responses in a timely manner. Overall, Michigan's enforcement program 
achieves appropriate injunctive relief through wetland restoration and 
wetland mitigation and seeks and obtains adequate penalties.

IV. Summary of Comments Received and EPA Response

    While not required to do so according to the 404 state program 
regulations at 40 CFR part 233, EPA chose to invite public comment on 
EPA's January 2003 notice and Preliminary Report. In response to the 
notice (68 FR 772), EPA received 26 comment letters or e-mail 
responses. Commenters included two federal agencies (USFWS and the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS)); the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 
Indians; two county drain commissioners; two representatives of the 
Michigan Drain Code Coalition; a member of the Indian Mission 
Conservation Club; and 19 individual citizens. In addition, the 
Michigan Wetland Action Coalition representing 52 conservation 
organizations provided extensive comments.
    The majority of commenters agreed with the findings of EPA's 
Preliminary Report and were supportive of the proposed corrective 
actions. Four commenters stated that Michigan should continue to 
administer the CWA Section 404 program since they felt the state 
program was more stringent than the federal program and the state was 
doing a better job of protecting the Great Lakes than would the federal 
government if it administered the program under federal law. A summary 
of the comments received and EPA responses follow.

A. Federal Agency Comments

    The USFWS provided comments on a number of issues addressed in the 
program review. With regard to Michigan's scope of jurisdiction, the 
USFWS expressed concern over the lack of a mechanism to ensure that the 
state's program will remain as rigorous as any program the Corps would 
administer, even as changes occur to CWA Section 404 jurisdiction, and 
to the federal Section 404 program, over time. The only remedy that EPA 
can identify to ensure that Michigan's CWA Section 404 program remains 
in compliance with the standards set forth at 40 CFR 233.1 is EPA's 
periodic review of the state's program and EPA's ongoing review of 
individual permits and cases.
    The USFWS continues to have concerns with Michigan's Part 303 which 
provides that if MDEQ does not approve or disapprove a permit 
application within 90 days the application shall be considered 
approved. The USFWS asserts that this time constraint unduly limits the 
amount of time that federal agencies have to review projects. The USFWS 
would prefer to have the 90 day time frame deleted from state law or 
amend the law to make it explicit that if a permit is issued pursuant 
to the 90 day timeframe, the permit is considered to have been issued 
under state law only, and is not a CWA Section 404 permit. EPA agrees 
that MDEQ's 90 day time frame is not congruent with the time frames 
allowed under 40 CFR 233.50. However, EPA has concluded that, to date, 
MDEQ, EPA, and other reviewing federal agencies have been able to work 
to ensure that problems are resolved, or that a permit is denied, 
before the 90 day deadline is reached. MDEQ asserts that it will ensure 
that any future permits issued by MDEQ due to the existence of the 90 
day deadline, without confirmation of compliance

[[Page 44724]]

with the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines, will have the legal status of a 
state-only permit, and not a CWA Section 404 permit. For this reason 
EPA does not find a corrective action is warranted.
    The USFWS commented that EPA needs to submit the informal program 
review and EPA's review and approval of the state's corrective actions 
to the consultation requirements of Section 7 of the ESA. The USFWS 
argued that EPA is taking a federal action which imposes on EPA the 
obligation to formally consult with the USFWS pursuant to Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA, in order to ensure that these actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. EPA 
disagrees with the USFWS' position on this issue. We do not intend to 
enter into formal consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA. EPA does not consider its conduct of performing 
this informal program review and its agreements with Michigan on 
corrective actions the state will implement to be a ``Federal action'' 
which triggers ESA Section 7 consultation. In March 2004, EPA shared 
its legal conclusions regarding the ESA Section 7 consultation issue 
with the East Lansing Field Office of the USFWS. EPA has emphasized 
that it is committed to working with USFWS and MDEQ to address concerns 
regarding whether the state's administration of the CWA Section 404 
program is potentially jeopardizing T & E species or their critical 
habitat.
    USFWS also expressed concerns that the MDEQ's process for screening 
proposed projects to ensure that they will not jeopardize T & E species 
or their critical habitat is inadequate. The USFWS offered its 
cooperation to remedy the shortcomings it perceived in MDEQ's review 
process. The USFWS also suggested that a Memorandum of Agreement 
between MDEQ, EPA and the USFWS be developed to address the issues the 
USFWS has raised with regard to T & E species issues. EPA will work 
with the USFWS and MDEQ on the development of a MOA to address these 
USFWS concerns. In addition, EPA, MDEQ and the USFWS have recently 
developed a new procedure for screening minor permit projects to ensure 
that impacts to T & E species are adequately assessed. Finally, other 
than the subjects discussed above, the USFWS commends the EPA's review 
of Michigan's CWA Section 404 program and Michigan's cooperation during 
the review and subsequent development of corrective actions.
    The USFS indicated that it had concerns with how MDEQ is handling 
permitting on Wild and Scenic Rivers in Michigan. The USFS indicated 
that Michigan's assumption of the CWA Section 404 program did not waive 
the need for federal review of applications involving discharges within 
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The USFS 
indicated that there have been instances of MDEQ staff either issuing a 
permit for activities for which the USFS has made an adverse finding 
due to Wild and Scenic River concerns, or issuing modifications to 
permits after a Section 7 determination was made by the USFS without 
coordinating with the USFS on the proposed modifications. The USFS 
requested EPA's support in improving coordination between the USFS and 
MDEQ. The MOA between EPA and the state currently requires all public 
notices of CWA Section 404 permit applications for projects proposed in 
Wild and Scenic Rivers be sent to the appropriate federal agencies for 
review. EPA notes that provisions in the federal regulations for 
federal review of CWA Section 404 permit public notices does not 
require EPA to provide the USFS with copies of the public notices. 
However, MDEQ does send the USFS public notices for projects proposed 
on Wild and Scenic Rivers. In the past, the USFS has not provided EPA 
with any comments on public notices for proposed projects that may 
involve Wild and Scenic Rivers issues for EPA to include in the federal 
comment letter that EPA sends to MDEQ pursuant to 40 CFR 233.50. EPA 
has informed the USFS that EPA is willing to include USFS comments 
which relate to CWA issues, in the federal comment letter EPA sends to 
MDEQ provided the USFS meets the time frames established by 40 CFR 
233.50.

B. Public Comments

    With regard to the state's scope of jurisdiction several commenters 
expressed the desire for greater protection over small and isolated 
wetlands. Several commenters wanted the state's inventory of wetlands 
in counties with populations below 100,000 expedited. Other commenters 
were skeptical that the inventories would be completed or believed that 
the inventories would be of little use. Finally, one comment indicated 
that amending the Michigan statute to address the jurisdictional issue 
would be a more timely and cost effective action. EPA acknowledges that 
amending the statute may be more cost effective, however, the state has 
already completed the inventories for the majority of the state and has 
committed to providing the necessary resources to complete the 
inventory during 2006. EPA continues to consider the performance of the 
wetland inventories to be an adequate corrective action.
    A number of commenters concurred with EPA's findings that 
Michigan's exemptions for drainage, farming and construction of 
tailings basins for iron and copper mining were less stringent than the 
federal regulations and supported EPA's position that the statute needs 
to be amended. MDEQ has agreed to seek amendments to Part 303 to make 
state exemptions as stringent as the federal exemptions.
    Several commenters supported the development of new rules to 
prescribe best management practices for certain utility work in 
wetlands. They also stated that if MDEQ could not provide enforcement 
of the best management practices, that the exemption found at M.C.L. 
Section 324.30305(l) and (m) should be deleted. MDEQ has agreed to 
limit these exemptions to activities not regulated under the CWA, to 
develop general permit categories to authorize the remainder of 
activities currently exempted, and to define best management practices 
for these types of utility crossings.
    With regard to permitting authority issues, one group of commenters 
concurred with the EPA's concerns regarding Part 301 provisions for 
minor permits and agreed that rule changes were needed to ensure that 
cumulative adverse impacts will be considered before general permit 
categories are established. MDEQ has agreed to make the necessary rule 
changes.
    One group of commenters disagreed with EPA's finding that the 
absence of an explicit recapture provision does not render the 
permitting program inadequate. EPA's position continues to be that part 
301 has provisions that are at least as stringent as the recapture 
clause of the CWA Section 404(f)(2) and that the absence of an explicit 
recapture provision in part 303 does not render the state's CWA Section 
404 permitting program inadequate because the strict application of the 
exemptions provisions in part 303 should prevent the need to rely on 
any type of recapture provision.
    One group of commenters agreed with EPA's finding that there is a 
need to make sure that the Michigan permitting program is consistent 
with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. These same commenters were 
concerned about EPA and MDEQ's contention that MDEQ can issue a state-
only permit which may not adhere to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines. These commenters felt that

[[Page 44725]]

the issuance of a state-only permit was confusing to the public and 
supports the notion that Michigan wetland permits are governed solely 
by Michigan law. EPA notes that Michigan permits are based on Michigan 
state law and agrees that the issuance of a state-only permit can be 
confusing in light of the fact that the Michigan program is supposed to 
be consistent with the CWA Section 404. It is EPA's expectation that 
once the proposed corrective actions are implemented, the Michigan 
program will be consistent with the federal program and MDEQ no longer 
will feel compelled by circumstances to issue state-only permits, 
except in cases where the 90-day timeframe for approval or disapproval 
has lapsed and the permit will be a state-only permit. The federal 
regulations do, however, recognize that there may be cases when the 
state neither satisfies EPA's objections nor denies the permit. In such 
an instance the regulations at 233.50(j) state that the Corps shall 
process the permit application.
    A number of commenters criticized MDEQ's enforcement efforts in 
general. Other commenters disagreed with EPA's finding that MDEQ is 
adequately authorized to and is observing the federal requirements with 
regard to investigation of citizen complaints. Some commenters also 
expressed disagreement with EPA's findings that MDEQ conducts an 
adequate wetland enforcement program. Commenters expressed concern that 
MDEQ issues after-the-fact permits too often, rather than take an 
enforcement action. Commenters also stated that they did not think that 
MDEQ was adequately monitoring permittees' compliance with permit 
conditions. EPA agrees that an increase in MDEQ enforcement activity 
and monitoring of compliance with permit conditions would be beneficial 
to the resources and would strengthen Michigan's permitting program. 
EPA finds, however, that MDEQ's enforcement program as administered is 
adequate and effective. While EPA is not requiring that MDEQ implement 
any specific corrective actions with regard to its enforcement program, 
EPA has made a number of recommendations for improvement in the Final 
Report. EPA also notes that MDEQ is currently taking steps to increase 
the number of enforcement staff.

Summary of Findings

    EPA's informal review of Michigan's CWA Section 404 program 
included consideration of all the information submitted by MDEQ and the 
comments received in response to the January 7, 2003 Federal Register 
Notice. EPA has identified several deficiencies in Michigan's CWA 
Section 404 program. In order to remedy these deficiencies, MDEQ has 
proposed certain corrective actions and a timetable for completion of 
these actions. EPA agrees that the state's proposed corrective actions, 
once implemented, will address the deficiencies identified in 
Michigan's CWA Section 404 program. The deficiencies and the corrective 
actions proposed by the state of Michigan are contained in the Final 
Report and in documents located in the public docket that support this 
Notice. EPA has concluded that program withdrawal proceedings should 
not be initiated at this time. However, this Notice and the Final 
Report are not EPA's final action on the petition to withdraw. Within 
36 months of the date of this notice, EPA will review all corrective 
actions completed by Michigan and determine whether initiating formal 
withdrawal proceedings is warranted.

    Dated: July 22, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8-17588 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P