Unknown. Final rule

30,322 words·~138 min read·/register/2007/09/10/07-4414

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-09-10.xml --- 72 174 Monday, September 10, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Child Care and Development Fund: Error rate reporting; forms and instructions approval, 51639 07-4410 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:

Lake Michigan, Winnetka, IL, 51557-51559 E7-17717 Savannah River, GA, 51555-51557 E7-17631 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, 51627 07-4407 Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 51627 07-4408 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 51627-51628 07-4409 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements:

Germaine, Randi M., M.D., 51665-51668 E7-17757 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* CIMA Labs, Inc., 51664 E7-17766 Cody Laboratories, Inc., 51664-51665 E7-17767 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51628-51629 E7-17761 Meetings: Reading First Advisory Committee, 51629-51630 E7-17774 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Employee benefit plans; individual exemptions:

Barclays Global Investors, N.A., et al., 51668-51685 E7-17676 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Risdon International, 51685 E7-17745 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: New Hampshire, 51564-51567 E7-17633 Ohio; correction, 51567-51568 E7-17627 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:

New Hampshire, 51574-51575 E7-17635 Farm Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51633 07-4448 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Television broadcasting: Advanced television

(ATV)systems— Digital television transition; DTV table of allotments, 51575-51581 E7-17643 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51633-51634 07-4440 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 51630 E7-17736 Natural gas pipeline rate and refund report filings, 51631-51633 E7-17734 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 51635 E7-17728 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51582-51583 E7-17735 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial and Yakima Provincial Advisory Committees, 51583 07-4414 Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council, 51583-51584 07-4411 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Federal Management Regulation: Antennas of Federal agencies and public service organizations; fee assessment and cost recovery (FMR bulletin 2007-B3), 51635-51639 E7-17755 Health Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Interior Interior Department See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from— Korea, 51584-51588 E7-17756 Polyethylene retail carrier bags from— China, 51588-51595 E7-17751 Stainless steel bar from— India, 51595-51598 E7-17749 Steel concrete reinforcing bars from— Turkey, 51598-51602 E7-17758 Countervailing duties: Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from— Korea, 51602-51609 E7-17746 Dynamic random access memory semiconductors from— Korea, 51609-51614 E7-17759 Laminated woven sacks from— China, 51614-51615 E7-17747 Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— Korea, 51615-51619 E7-17748 Judicial Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Internet access to federal court case files; privacy and security implications, 51659-51660 07-4415 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51660-51663 E7-17724 E7-17741 E7-17742 Privacy Act; systems of records, 51663-51664 E7-17754 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Western and Central Gulf of Mexico OCS— Oil and gas lease sales, 51654-51657 E7-17737 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council Science Committee, 51686 E7-17731 National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board, 51686 E7-17726 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings: Archival materials; digitizing for public access; plan, 51686-51687 E7-17729 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 51639-51641 07-4381 07-4382 07-4383 National Center for Research Resources, 51641 07-4393 07-4395 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 07-4389 07-4391 51643-51645 07-4394 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 51645 07-4399 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 51642 07-4386 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 51642-51644 07-4387 07-4388 07-4390 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 51644 07-4392 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 51641-51642 07-4384 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 51645-51646 07-4400 07-4401 National Institute on Aging, 51646 07-4402 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 51642 07-4385 National Library of Medicine, 51646-51647 07-4398 Scientific Review Center, 51647-51652 07-4396 07-4397 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: AlphaCore Pharma, Inc., 51652 E7-17732 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish, 51570-51571 E7-17772 NOTICES Coastal zone management programs and estuarine sanctuaries: Consistency appeals— AES Sparrows Point LNG, et al., 51619 07-4416 Endangered and threatened species: Findings on petitions, etc.— Pacific herring; Lynn Canal stock, 51619-51621 E7-17779 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., E7-17776 51621-51622 E7-17777 Marine mammals: Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Scripps Institute of Oceanography; northeastern Pacific Ocean; low-energy marine seismic survey; dolphins, whales, etc., 51622-51627 E7-17775 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51657 07-4413 Environmental statements; record of decision: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, FL; general management plan, 51657-51658 07-4412 National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 51658 E7-17723 Oil and gas plans of operations; availability, etc.: Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, TN, 51658-51659 E7-17768 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Biological Sciences Advisory Committee, 51687 E7-17725 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Naval Postgraduate School Board of Advisors to the President, 51628 E7-17765 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: NCP Coatings, Inc., 51628 E7-17763 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 51687-51688 E7-17738 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51688-51689 07-4424 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES Patent cases: Patent Cooperation Treaty; application procedures, 51559-51564 E7-17711 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 51689-51691 E7-17683 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 51692-51693 E7-17721 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 51693-51695 E7-17720 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51695 E7-17753 State State Department RULES Acquisition regulations: Information technology systems; security issues, 51568-51570 E7-17752 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 51652-51654 E7-17764 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority PROPOSED RULES Practice and procedure: Testimony by agency employees, production of official records, and disclosure of official information in legal proceedings, 51572-51574 E7-17722 U.S. Institute of Peace United States Institute of Peace NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51695 07-4449 Readers Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 174 Monday, September 10, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. CGD07-05-138] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area: Savannah River, Savannah, GA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On January 19, 2007, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with request for comments, which revised the regulated navigation area in Savannah, Georgia, to address changes in Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG)tankship mooring locations following the creation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG facility on the Savannah River. The final rule only addressed facility and vessel requirements when an LNG vessel was underway or moored parallel to the navigational channel outside of the slip. The interim rule was necessary to describe requirements for three different potential mooring situations following the LNG facilities expansion. This final rule adopts the interim rule requirements without change for the following mooring situations at the LNG facility: An LNG tankship moored outside of the slip, one or more LNG tankships moored inside the slip, and LNG tankships moored both inside and outside of the slip. DATES: Effective October 10, 2007 the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 which was published at 72 FR 2448 on January 19, 2007, is adopted as a final rule. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD07-05-138], and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Unit Savannah, Gordon Low Federal Building, Suite 1017, 100 W. Oglethorpe, Savannah, Georgia 31401, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Robert Webb, Waterways Management Officer, Marine Safety Unit Savannah;

(912)652-4353. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On January 19, 2007, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with request for comments entitled “Regulated Navigation Area: Savannah River, Savannah, GA” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 2448). The Coast Guard received two letters commenting on the interim rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose In May 2002, Southern LNG Inc., submitted a letter of intent to expand the LNG facility on Elba Island that would nearly double LNG storage capacity and substantially increase the number of LNG tankship arrivals. The Coast Guard's positive endorsement was contingent upon the relocation of the primary LNG mooring facility in order to reduce the risk of allision and subsequent breaching of an LNG tankship's cargo tank(s). To meet this Coast Guard requirement, Southern LNG Inc., initiated a project to create a protected docking slip designed to allow simultaneous LNG transfers from vessels. This expansion, completed early in 2006, significantly reduced the level of risk associated with LNG tankship operations and vessels passing by the LNG facility. This rule addresses the three possible tankship mooring configurations now available to LNG tankships. The three possible tankship mooring configurations available to LNG tankships are LNG vessels moored— • Inside the slip, • Outside the slip, or a • Combination of inside and outside the slip. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received four comments from two commenters during the interim rule comment period (72 FR 2448). One commenter requested consideration as a small entity and a “variation in the 2nm/70 yard restriction”. It appears that the commenter's vessel may meet the definition of a small entity; however, the Coast Guard does not believe the rule will cause significant economic impact to the commenter. The requirement to maintain a 2 nautical mile distance from LNG tankships, carrying LNG in excess of heel, only applies to vessels 1,600 gross tons and larger. The commenter's vessel is well under 1,600 gross tons and would only have to meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(6)(vi) of the rule. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) states that all vessels less than 1,600 gross tons shall keep clear of transiting LNG tankships and paragraph (d)(6)(vi) prohibits vessels less than 1,600 gross tons from approaching within 70 yards (210 feet) of a LNG tankship, carrying LNG in excess of heel, without the permission of the Captain of the Port. The width of the navigable channel where the commenter's vessel is expected to encounter a LNG tankship, and is directed to keep clear, is no less than 500 feet (166.7 yards). The Coast Guard believes the width of the channel provides an adequate distance for vessels under 1,600 gross tons to keep clear of a LNG tankship and therefore would not delay the commenter's vessel or cause significant economic impact. Also, the requirement for vessels under 1,600 gross tons not to approach within 70 yards of a LNG tankship, carrying LNG in excess of heel, without permission of the COTP is applicable when approaching a moored LNG tankship. The route of the commenter's vessel does not typically include passing the LNG facility and therefore it is not likely that they will encounter a situation where they would approach a moored LNG tankship. The width of the navigation channel at the LNG facility is no less than 500 feet therefore, if a circumstance arose where the commenter's vessel did have to pass the LNG facility, the width of the channel would provide more than enough distance for the commenter's vessel to maintain the minimum 70 yard requirement. The Coast Guard does not believe this rule will cause the commenter significant economic impact because it is not likely the commenter's vessel will encounter a situation where they pass the LNG facility and the channel is wide enough to maintain the 70 yard requirement without impacting the commenter's vessel. The second commenter submitted several comments. The commenter stated that it was their belief that the docking pilots would better serve the LNG vessel and facility if stationed on the escort tugs after berthing the LNG vessel in the slip. After careful review and consultation with local docking management, the requirement for a bridge watch consisting of a docking pilot or licensed deck officer on board the moored LNG vessel remains. The Coast Guard believes that the docking pilot's reaction time and situational awareness to an emergency situation on the LNG tankship will be greater if he or she remains on board the LNG tankship. The second commenter also stated they believe the docking pilots would be better off assisting a vessel, transiting the RNA, which has developed an emergency situation requiring tug assistance. Following careful review of this comment, we believe the Federal Pilot or Savannah River Pilot piloting a passing vessel 1,600 gross tons or greater that has an emergency, is better equipped to coordinate tug assistance in the course of their actions to address the emergency and bring a stricken vessel under control than a docking pilot on board an assist tug. The second commenter also stated that they believe the docking pilots will be in violation of Georgia Code Sections 52-6-45 and 52-6-54 if they are on board an LNG vessel ordered to get underway in the event of an emergency departure. After careful review, consultation, and in agreement with the Savannah River Pilots and local docking management, the Coast Guard does not believe Georgia Code Sections 52-6-45 and 52-6-54 are applicable nor that docking pilots will be in violation of these state codes by remaining on board a LNG tankship ordered to get underway in an emergency. Georgia Code (O.C.G.A.) Section 52-6-45

(2006)is entitled “Vessels to be under direction and control of licensed pilots; exemptions; use of docking pilots.” O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45(a) states “[E]xcept as otherwise provided in this Code section, every vessel shall be under the direction and control of a pilot licensed by this state when underway in the bays, rivers, harbors, and ports of this state and the approaches thereto.” O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45(b) lists categories exempted of the requirements in section 52-6-45(a) one of which is “[V]essels in distress or jeopardy, except that such vessel shall take a state licensed pilot as soon as one arrives at the vessel.” Furthermore, paragraph

(c)in § 52-6-45 states “[N]othing in this Code section shall be construed to prohibit a vessel from utilizing the services of a docking pilot in addition to the state licensed pilot required under this chapter during docking and undocking maneuvers with the assistance of one or more tugboats.” O.C.G.A. section 52-6-54 makes it unlawful for anyone to act as a pilot without a license or interfere or disturb a licensed pilot in the performance of their duties. Additionally, paragraph

(c)of O.C.G.A. section 52-6-54 states “[N]otwithstanding any other provisions of this Code section, any person may assist a vessel in distress which has no pilot on board if such person delivers up the vessel to the first licensed pilot who comes on board and offers to conduct it.” The requirement for a docking pilot to remain on board a moored LNG ship at the facility is a necessary requirement needed to assist LNG ships in an emergency situation; emergency situations have occurred at the facility—as previously discussed in the Interim Rule with requests for comments (72 FR 2448). O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45 and O.C.G.A. section 52-6-54 allow for licensed pilots and docking pilots to operate on board a vessel in conjunction with one another. These Georgia Code sections also allow for anyone to assist a vessel in distress without a pilot on board as long as that person does not interfere with a licensed pilot that shows up on scene to assist the vessel. It is for these reasons above that the requirement for a bridge watch consisting of a docking pilot or licensed deck officer on board the moored LNG vessel remains. This final rule adopts the requirements published in the interim rule (72 FR 2448) without change. The final rule is necessary to ensure the safety of LNG vessels, the facility, the waterway, and the public due to the three different mooring situations now possible following the LNG facilities expansion. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Delays for inbound and outbound traffic due to LNG transits will be reduced through this rule and through pre-transit conferences between the pilots and the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. Additional financial benefits of this rule are that LNG tankships transiting in heel will not be required to have two escort towing vessels and LNG tankships moored only inside the LNG facility slip will only be required to provide 2 standby towing vessels vice the current requirement of 3 towing vessels. The requirement of having one of the escort towing vessels be FiFi Class 1 equipped does not impose an additional financial burden due to a FiFi Class 1 escort towing vessel is currently being utilized for this purpose. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposal so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Division 5100.0, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 which was published at 72 FR 2448 on January 19, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: August 14, 2007. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. 1 [FR Doc. E7-17631 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-116] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Winnetka Fireworks, Lake Michigan, Winnetka, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Michigan, Winnetka, IL. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan during the Winnetka September 15, 2007 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on September 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-04-116 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at

(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Winnetka fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on September 15, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06′23″ N, 087°43′12″ W. (NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Michigan off Winnetka, Illinois, between 8:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on September 15, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only two hours for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 42°06′23″ N, 087°43′12″ W. (NAD 83).

(b)*Effective period.* This zone is effective from 8:30 p.m. on September 15, 2007 to 10:30 p.m. on September 15, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: August 27, 2007. B.C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-17717 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. PTO-C-2006-0057] RIN 0651-AC09 April 2007 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is revising the rules of practice in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)to conform them to certain amendments made to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty

(PCT)that took effect on April 1, 2007. These amendments result in the addition of a mechanism to the PCT system whereby applicants may request that the right to claim priority be restored in applications that meet certain requirements. In addition, these amendments provide a means for applicants to insert a missing portion of an international application without the loss of the international filing date. These amendments also clarify the circumstances and procedures under which the correction of an obvious mistake may be made in an international application. Finally, the Office is revising the search fee for international applications. DATES: *Effective Date:* The changes to 37 CFR 1.57, 1.437, and 1.465 are effective on September 10, 2007. The changes to 37 CFR 1.17 and 1.445 and the addition of 37 CFR 1.452, are effective on November 9, 2007. *Applicability Date:* The changes to 37 CFR 1.57, 1.437, and 1.465 are applicable as of April 1, 2007, for international applications filed on or after that date. The changes to 37 CFR 1.17 and the addition of 37 CFR 1.452 are applicable as of November 9, 2007 for international applications filed on or after April 1, 2007. The changes to 37 CFR 1.445 are applicable to any international application having a receipt date that is on or after November 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard R. Cole, Senior Legal Examiner, Office of PCT Legal Administration (OPCTLA) directly by telephone at

(571)272-3281, or by facsimile at

(571)273-0459. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the September-October 2005 meeting of the Governing Bodies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the PCT Assembly adopted various amendments to the Regulations under the PCT that enter into force on April 1, 2007. The amended PCT Regulations were published in the PCT Gazette of February 23, 2006 (08/2006), in section IV, at pages 5496-5541. The purposes of these amendments are to:

(1)Bring the provisions of the PCT into closer alignment with the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT); and

(2)clarify the circumstances and procedures under which the correction of an obvious mistake may be made in an international application. *Alignment with the PLT:* The PLT provides for:

(1)Restoration of applicant's right to claim priority under certain situations (PLT Article 13(2));

(2)insertion of a missing portion of an application without the loss of the filing date (PLT Article 5(6)); and

(3)substitution of the description and drawings upon filing with a reference to a previously filed application (PLT Article 5(7)). The present amendments to the PCT Regulations will provide similar mechanisms for applicants using the PCT system. With regard to restoration of applicant's right to claim priority under certain situations (PLT Article 13(2)), PCT Rule 26 *bis* has been amended to provide for the restoration of the right to claim priority in international applications which have been filed between twelve and fourteen months after the priority date and in which the delay in filing the international application was either in spite of due care or unintentional. It must be noted that PCT Rule 49 *ter* provides for designated Offices whose national law is incompatible with the PCT provisions concerning restoration of the right of priority to take a reservation with respect to the effects of this provision on national applications. The United States has taken this reservation pending passage of legislation that would implement the PLT in the United States. Therefore, any restoration of a right of priority by the United States Receiving Office under this section, or by any other Receiving Office under the provisions of PCT Rule 26 *bis* .3, will not entitle applicants to a right of priority in any application which has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or in any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application in which the right of priority has been restored. Whether or not applicant is entitled to the right of priority continues to be governed by whether applicant has satisfied the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, and 365. It must also be noted that even though restoration of such a right will not entitle applicant to the right of priority in a subsequent United States application, the priority date will still govern all PCT time limits, including the thirty-month period for filing national stage papers and fees under 37 CFR 1.495. PCT Article 2(ix), which defines “priority date” for purposes of computing time limits, contains no limitation that the priority claim be valid. Thus, for example, in an international application containing an earliest priority claim to a German application filed thirteen months prior to the filing date of the international application, the filing date of the German application will be used as the basis for computing time limits under the PCT, including the thirty-month time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.495 to submit the basic national fee (§ 1.492(a)) to avoid abandonment, even though applicant would not be entitled to priority to the German application in the United States national phase since the German application was filed more than twelve months from the international filing date. *See* 35 U.S.C. 119(a) and 365(b). Concerning insertion of a missing portion of an application without the loss of the filing date through the use of an incorporation by reference statement (PLT Article 5(6)), PCT Rules 4 and 20 have been amended to allow for the inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement on the PCT Request form. PLT Article 5(7) provides for the substitution of the entire description and drawings upon filing with a reference to a previously filed application. While this provision could not be implemented to the extent provided in the PLT absent amendment of the PCT Articles, the amendments to PCT Rules 4 and 20 to allow for the inclusion of an incorporation by reference statement on the PCT Request form result in substantially the same outcome for applicants. Applicants may rely on this statement to insert portions of the international application (including the entire description, claims, and/or drawings) which were missing upon the international filing date without loss of their original filing date. 37 CFR 1.412(c)(1) already provides that the USPTO, in its capacity as a PCT Receiving Office, will accord international filing dates in accordance with PCT Rule 20. Therefore, no change to the rules of practice in title 37 CFR is necessary to implement these provisions, other than the deletion of 37 CFR 1.437(b) due to the fact that missing drawings are no longer handled in a manner different from the description and claims. Similarly, no change to the rules of practice in title 37 CFR is necessary to implement the PCT Rule changes directed to clarifying the circumstances and procedures under which the correction of an obvious mistake may be made in an international application (PCT Rule 91). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the Office's interpretation of the previous version of PCT Rule 91.1 to mean that correction of an obvious error is permitted under PCT Rule 91 only if the correction is obvious to the Office was unreasonable. *See Helfgott* v. *Dickinson,* 209 F.3d 1328, 1336, 54 USPQ2d 1425, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 2000). PCT Rule 91, however, has been amended to permit correction of an obvious error only “if, and only if, it is obvious to the competent authority that, as at the applicable date under [PCT Rule 91(f)], something else was intended than what appears in the document concerned and that nothing else could have been intended than the proposed rectification.” *See* PCT Rule 91.1(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, any reliance upon the interpretation of the previous version of PCT Rule 91.1 in *Helfgott* should be carefully considered in view of the April 2007 amendment to PCT Rule 91.1. The USPTO will continue to implement PCT Rule 91 under the general authority granted under 35 U.S.C. 364(a), which provides that “[i]nternational applications shall be processed by the Patent and Trademark Office when acting as a Receiving Office, International Searching Authority, or International Preliminary Examining Authority, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the treaty, the Regulations, and this title.” Discussion of Specific Rules Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1, is amended as follows: *Section 1.17:* Section 1.17(t) is amended to set forth the fee for requesting restoration of the right of priority. *Section 1.57:* Section 1.57(a)(2) is amended to reflect that omitted portions of international applications, which applicant desires to be effective in other designated States, must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20. *Section 1.437:* Section 1.437(a) is amended for clarity and to remove inaccurate language currently present in the paragraph. Section 1.437(b) is deleted to reflect the fact that missing drawings will no longer be treated differently from missing parts of the description or claims. Section 1.437(c) is redesignated as § 1.437(b). *Section 1.445:* Section 1.445(a) is amended to set a search fee that more accurately reflects the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application. Recent cost analysis for the search and preparation of search and preparing Chapter I written opinions for international applications reveals that the average cost of this activity is over $1,800.00. Therefore, the Office is revising § 1.445(a) to provide for a search fee (and supplemental search fee) of $1,800.00. In addition, the Office is revising § 1.445(a) to provide that this $1,800.00 search fee is applicable, regardless of whether there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), a corresponding prior provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or no corresponding prior provisional or nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111. The Office formerly provided a reduced search fee if there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and such application is adequately identified in the international application or accompanying papers at the time of filing the international application. The backlog of applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) awaiting examination is such that it is no longer deemed appropriate to provide a reduced fee or other incentive for applicants to file an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to or essentially parallel with the filing of an international application. *Section 1.452:* Section 1.452 is added to provide for restoration of the right of priority in international applications (subject to the enumerated conditions and limitations). Certain changes have been made to this section from the previously proposed language in order to correct or eliminate inconsistencies between the section and the language of the PCT Regulations. Section 1.452(a) provides that applicants may request restoration of the right of priority if the international application was filed within two months from the expiration of the priority period as defined by PCT Rule 2.4 and the delay in filing the international application was unintentional. Section 1.452(b) provides that any request for restoration must be filed within fourteen months from the priority date and must be accompanied by:

(1)A notice adding the priority claim, if applicable;

(2)the requisite fee; and

(3)a statement that the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional. Section 1.452(c) provides that, in cases where applicant has requested early publication, the requirements under § 1.452(b) must be submitted prior to completion of the technical preparations for international publication. Section 1.452(d) sets forth that restoration of a priority claim by the United States Receiving Office under this section, or by any other Receiving Office under the provisions of PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 3, will not entitle applicants to a right of priority in any application which has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or in any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application in which the right to priority has been restored. *Section 1.465:* Section 1.465(b) is amended for clarity and to remove the limitation that the priority claim must be “valid” in order to be used as the basis for computing time limits under the PCT. Section 1.465(c) is deleted as unnecessary, as the obligation of the United States Receiving Office to proceed under PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 2 arises under 35 U.S.C. 361. In addition, reference to Rule 20.2(a)(i) or

(iii)is no longer appropriate in view of the amendments to PCT Rule 20. *Section 1.497:* Section 1.497(f)(1) is amended to reference PCT Rule 20.5(c) in that the reference to Rule 20.2 is no longer appropriate in view of the amendments to PCT Rule 20. The change to this section was not included in the previously proposed language, but is necessary in order to correct inconsistencies between the section and the language of the PCT Regulations. The Office published a notice proposing changes to the rules of practice to conform them to certain amendments made to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty

(PCT)that became effective on April 1, 2007, and to revise the search fee for international applications. *See April 2007 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures* , 72 FR 7583 (Feb. 16, 2007), 1316 *Off. Gaz. Pat. Office* 59 (Mar. 13, 2007). The Office received five comments (from intellectual property organizations, industry, and an individual patent practitioner) in response to this notice, and these comments are posted on the Office's Internet Web site. The comments and the Office's responses to the comments follow: *Comment 1:* Several comments objected to setting the search fee at a level of $1,800.00 on various grounds, including that it will have an impact on PCT users, that it could act as a deterrent to the use of the PCT, and that the amount is inconsistent with the fees charged in a U.S. national application. *Response:* The salient point remains that the previous fee levels were significantly inadequate when compared with the actual costs incurred by the USPTO. Based on recent cost analysis for the search and preparation of the search reports and Chapter I written opinions for international applications, the search fee amounts being adopted in this final rule are a more accurate reflection of the average cost of these activities. The Office maintains that applicants seeking patent protection in foreign countries have sufficient alternatives ( *e.g.* , using the Paris route or selecting an ISA other than the USPTO/ISA) that the search fee amounts being adopted in this final rule will not have a significant impact on any patent applicant's ability to seek patent protection in foreign countries. That patent applicants also employ the PCT system for other purposes does not warrant maintaining PCT search fee at amounts inadequate to recover the USPTO's actual costs. Further, with regard to the arguments that the fee amount is inconsistent with the fees charged in a U.S. national application, the filing, search, and examination fees for U.S. national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 371 are not set at an amount that recovers the actual costs of performing the search and examination of such applications, because the USPTO also collects issue and maintenance fees in U.S. national applications that are allowed and issue as a patent. Since international applications under the PCT do not themselves mature into patents, the fees paid in international applications must more accurately reflect the costs to the Office. *Comment 2:* Several comments also objected to the elimination of the reduction in the search fee in applications where there was a prior U.S. nonprovisional application. The commenters argued that some benefit is obtained by the Office even if, as a result in the Office's national application backlog, the search in the international application is performed prior to the search in the U.S. national application due to the fact that the results from the PCT search can then be used in the national application. *Response:* As noted in the specific discussion of § 1.445 above, the actual costs related to the international search are over $1800.00. The Office also recognizes that, if there is not a prior nonprovisional application, there is often a later filed national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, and that some benefit is obtained in that application as a result of the earlier PCT search. The amount of $1800.00 for all international applications, regardless of whether there was a prior nonprovisional application, therefore takes into account both the fact that benefits are obtained when there is a prior national application as well as the fact that there is also some benefit obtained when there is a later filed national stage application. *Comment 3:* One comment suggested that, with respect to the fact that the USPTO will only be deciding requests for the restoration of priority under the unintentional standard, the Office should also consider requests under the in spite of due care standard so as to not preclude applicants from the ability of receiving a favorable determination under such standard during the international stage. *Response:* The International Bureau has indicated that they will process requests for restoration of priority under both standards. Therefore, for applicants who wish treatment under the in spite of due care standard, and who know at the time of filing that the priority period has expired, they have the option of filing the international application with the International Bureau as receiving Office. For those applicants who find out after they have filed the international application that the priority period has expired, and who desire treatment under the in spite of due care standard, they may request that the application be transferred to the International Bureau as receiving Office under PCT Rule 19.4 in accordance with paragraph 166A. of the receiving Office Guidelines. Rule Making Considerations *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* For the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the changes in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The significant changes in this final rule are:

(1)Provisions for a restoration of a right of priority in certain limited situations; and

(2)An adjustment of the search and supplemental search fee to more accurately reflect the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application. The PCT enables United States applicants to file one application (an international or PCT application) in a standardized format in English in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) and have that application acknowledged as a regular national or regional filing in as many PCT Contracting States as the applicants desire to seek patent protection. *See* Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

(MPEP)1801. The primary benefit of the PCT system is the ability to delay the expense of submitting papers and fees to the PCT national offices. *See* MPEP 1801. The Office, in its capacity as a PCT Receiving Office, received about 42,900 international applications in fiscal year 2002, about 43,000 international applications in fiscal year 2003, about 45,400 international applications in fiscal year 2004, about 46,900 international applications in fiscal year 2005, and about 52,900 international applications in fiscal year 2006. 35 U.S.C. 376(b) provides that the Director shall prescribe the amount of the search fee, the supplemental search fee, and such other fees as established by the Director. Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this final rule adjusts the search fee in § 1.445(b)(2)(iii) and the supplemental search fee in § 1.445(b)(3) from $1,000.00 to $1,800.00 (an increase of $800.00). This adjustment to the search fee and supplemental search fee makes these fees more accurately reflect the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application. The PCT does not preclude United States applicants from filing patent applications directly in the patent offices of those countries which are Contracting States of the PCT (with or without previously having filed a regular national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 111(b) in the United States) and taking advantage of the priority rights and other advantages provided under the Paris Convention and the World Trade Organization

(WTO)administered Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs Agreement). *See* MPEP 1801. That is, the PCT is not the exclusive mechanism for seeking patent protection in foreign countries, but is instead simply an optional alternative route available to United States patent applicants for seeking patent protection in those countries that are Contracting States of the PCT. *See id* . In addition, an applicant filing an international application under the PCT in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) is not required to use the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority. The European Patent Office (except for applications containing business method claims) or the Korean Intellectual Property Office may be elected as the International Searching Authority for international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office. The applicable search fee if the European Patent Office is elected as the International Searching Authority European is $2,059.00 (set by the European Patent Office), and the applicable search fee if the Korean Intellectual Property Office is elected as the International Searching Authority is $232.00 (set by the Korean Intellectual Property Office). In 2003, the Government Accountability Office

(GAO)released a report containing the results of a survey of an expert panel of patent law attorneys concerning small businesses considering foreign patent protection with respect to the “cradle to grave” costs of foreign patent protection. *See Experts' Advice for Small Businesses Seeking Foreign Patents* , GAO-03-910 (2003). The GAO concluded that the cost of obtaining and maintaining foreign patents to be in the range of $160,000 to $330,000. *See id.* at 41. Therefore, the international search fee increase of $800.00 is not significant in comparison to the overall costs that a small entity must incur to obtain international patent protection. Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this final rule eliminates the reduced search fee in § 1.445(b)(2)(i) or

(ii)when there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and thereby adjusts the search fee in the situation in which there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) from $300.00 to $1,800.00 (an increase of $1,500.00). An applicant, however, has the option of filing a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) (rather than a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)) or not filing a prior application before filing an international application. This adjustment to the search fee is also to make these fees more accurately reflect the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application. As discussed previously, the PCT is not the exclusive mechanism for seeking patent protection in foreign countries, and an applicant filing an international application is not required to use the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority. Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this final rule establishes a fee for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority of $1,370.00. This fee amount is identical to the fee amount for petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365(a) (37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78). In addition, the Office anticipates that very few applicants will file a request for the restoration of the right of priority (about 100 each year, in comparison to the over 50,000 international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office each year). For the reasons stated previously, the changes in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *Executive Order 13132:* This rule making does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). *Executive Order 12866:* This rule making has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This notice involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The collection of information involved in this notice has been reviewed and approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-0021. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not resubmitting an information collection package to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this notice do not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collection under OMB control number 0651-0021. Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

(1)The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office; and

(2)Robert A. Clarke, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of Information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2). 2. Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraph

(t)to read as follows: § 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees.

(t)For the acceptance of an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365(a) (§§ 1.55 and 1.78) or for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority under § 1.452..........$1,370.00. 3. Section 1.57 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 1.57 Incorporation by reference.

(a)* * *

(2)Any amendment to an international application pursuant to this paragraph shall be effective only as to the United States, and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (§ 1.491) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application. Any omitted portion of the international application which applicant desires to be effective as to all designated States, subject to PCT Rule 20.8(b), must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20. 4. Section 1.437 is revised to read as follows: § 1.437 The drawings.

(a)Drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention (PCT Art. 7).

(b)The physical requirements for drawings are set forth in PCT Rule 11 and shall be adhered to. 5. Section 1.445 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows: § 1.445 International application filing, processing and search fees.

(a)* * *

(2)A search fee (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16)..........$1,800.00.

(3)A supplemental search fee when required, per additional invention..........$1,800.00. 6. Section 1.452 is added to read as follows: § 1.452 Restoration of right of priority.

(a)If the international application has an international filing date which is later than the expiration of the priority period as defined by PCT Rule 2.4 but within two months from the expiration of the priority period, the right of priority in the international application may be restored upon request if the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional.

(b)A request to restore the right of priority in an international application under paragraph

(a)of this section must be filed not later than two months from the expiration of the priority period and must include:

(1)A notice under PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 1(a) adding the priority claim, if the priority claim in respect of the earlier application is not contained in the international application;

(2)The fee set forth in § 1.17(t); and

(3)A statement that the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.

(c)If the applicant makes a request for early publication under PCT Article 21(2)(b), any requirement under paragraph

(b)of this section filed after the technical preparations for international publication have been completed by the International Bureau shall be considered as not having been submitted in time.

(d)Restoration of a right of priority to a prior application by the United States Receiving Office under this section, or by any other Receiving Office under the provisions of PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 3, will not entitle applicants to a right of priority in any application which has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or in any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application in which the right to priority has been restored. 7. Section 1.465 is amended by revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 1.465 Timing of application processing based on the priority date.

(b)When a claimed priority date is corrected under PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 1(a), or a priority claim is added under PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 1(a), withdrawn under PCT Rule 90 *bis.* 3, or considered not to have been made under PCT Rule 26 *bis.* 2, the priority date for the purposes of computing any non-expired time limits will be the filing date of the earliest remaining priority claim under PCT Article 8 of the international application, or if none, the international filing date. 8. Section 1.497 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows: § 1.497 Oath or declaration under 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(4).

(f)* * *

(1)There was a change in the international filing date pursuant to PCT Rule 20.5(c) after the declaration was executed; or Dated: August 31, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-17711 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497; A-1-FRL-8463-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Nashua AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This SIP submittal contains revisions to the carbon monoxide

(CO)maintenance plan for Nashua, New Hampshire. Specifically, New Hampshire has revised the contingency plan portion of the original maintenance plan. The intended effect of this action is to approve this revision to the Nashua CO maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 9, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 10, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497,” Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier* . Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number

(617)918-1045, fax number

(617)918-0045, e-mail *judge.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. What action is EPA taking? III. Summary of SIP Revision IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose On May 30, 2007, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of a minor modification to the carbon monoxide

(CO)maintenance plan for Nashua, New Hampshire. (A redesignation request and a maintenance plan for the Nashua CO nonattainment area were approved by EPA on November 29, 2000 (65 FR 71060).) The modification changes the triggering mechanism which will be used by the State to determine if contingency measures need to be implemented in Nashua. The end result of this action will be to allow the discontinuation of CO monitoring in the Nashua maintenance area. II. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving revisions to the Nashua carbon monoxide maintenance plan submitted by the State of New Hampshire on May 30, 2007. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's modification of the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Nashua. New Hampshire's SIP revision and EPA's evaluation of this SIP revision are discussed below. Additional details are also provided in a memorandum dated July 27, 2007, entitled “Technical Support Document for Revision to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Nashua, New Hampshire,” (TSD). The TSD and New Hampshire's submittal are available in the docket supporting this action. III. Summary of SIP Revision On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a SIP revision to EPA that contains a modification to their CO maintenance plan for the Nashua CO maintenance area. The modifications to the maintenance plan change the triggering mechanism by which contingency measures would be implemented and will allow the State to discontinue CO monitoring in the Nashua maintenance area. CO concentrations measured in Nashua have been below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nearly 20 years, and in recent years, maximum measured concentrations have been less than 50% of the 9 parts per million 8-hour CO standard. In this SIP revision, the State of New Hampshire is establishing an alternative triggering mechanism, which will rely on CO data from a nearby CO monitor in Manchester, New Hampshire. Section 6.5.3 of the State's currently approved CO maintenance plan, entitled “Selection of a Nonattainment Indicator,” includes a triggering mechanism based on levels at the CO monitor in Nashua. Under the current maintenance plan, contingency measures in Nashua are triggered when a violation of the CO NAAQS is measured in Nashua. Under the revised maintenance plan, New Hampshire will rely on data from the Manchester CO monitor to determine when and if monitoring will be reestablished in the Nashua maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the Nashau maintenance area. The revised maintenance plan language is found below: “For the purposes of this plan, New Hampshire will be discontinuing CO monitoring in Nashua upon EPA approval of this revised plan. New Hampshire DES will continue to collect and review CO monitoring data from nearby Manchester, NH on an on-going basis. In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar year monitored in Manchester reaches 75 percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for CO, New Hampshire will, within 9 months of recording such concentrations, re-establish a CO monitoring site in Nashua consistent with EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those data. New Hampshire will continue to commit to implement its contingency program in Nashua in the event that a CO violation (the ‘contingency trigger’) is monitored at the re-established Nashua monitoring site at any time during the maintenance period and to consider one or more of the other EPA-approved measures listed in Section 6.5.2 if necessary to reduce CO levels. If the Manchester CO monitor measures a violation of either the federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, the contingency measures in Section 6.5.2 will be implemented in Nashua as well, until a re-established Nashua CO monitor shows that the area is attainment of the CO standard. When implementing contingency measures, New Hampshire will review and implement the measures necessary to remedy the violation, including transportation control measures

(TCM)or other additional vehicle or fuel controls.” IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision EPA agrees that the mechanism described above represents an acceptable contingency triggering mechanism for the Nashua CO maintenance plan. Approval of this revised triggering mechanism will allow New Hampshire DES to discontinue monitoring in the Nashua area, which we believe is appropriate for this area which is currently measuring concentrations well below the existing 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS. Under this plan, we believe air quality goals can be maintained, and State monitoring resources conserved. On October 17, 2006, EPA published a final monitoring rule revising the minimum monitoring requirements. That rule explicitly recognized that, in some cases where measured levels of pollutants are low, shutting down certain CO monitors may be allowed. The rule, however, also explicitly provides that if a monitor is the only monitor in the area, and it serves as a trigger to implement a contingency measure in an EPA-approved maintenance plan, the maintenance plan would need to be revised, and the trigger replaced. (See 71 FR 61250 and 71 FR 61301.) As described above, this action is approving a change to the mechanism that New Hampshire will use to determine when contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Nashua. Previously, the State would implement a contingency measure based on concentrations of CO monitored in Nashua. In light of the fact that Nashua CO concentrations have been well below the standard for some time, the State is looking to conserve resources. New Hampshire DES wants to use its CO monitor in Manchester, a nearby city, to aid in determining if Nashua has a CO problem. Nashua and Manchester (both in Hillsborough County) are less than 20 miles apart, have similar populations, and both have had CO concentrations similar to each other for years. (The TSD provides a comparison of the data collected at the Nashua and Manchester CO monitors over the past several decades.) Both cities were designated nonattainment in 1990 for CO “by operation of law,” though both had design values below the standard at that time. In both cases, only the city itself was designated nonattainment since data did not support an expansion of the nonattainment area. Both cities were redesignated to attainment in 2000, and both have measured CO concentrations well below the standard since that time. In order to conserve resources, the State is seeking to discontinue monitoring in Nashua since current air quality levels do not warrant the additional expense of running a CO monitor in this area. The State has committed to continue CO monitoring in Manchester, and will reestablish CO monitoring in Nashua if air quality in Manchester degrades significantly. Starting in the early 1970s, EPA has set national standards that have considerably reduced emissions of CO and other pollutants from motor vehicles, including tailpipe emissions, new vehicle technologies, and clean fuels programs. Because of this, EPA believes that it is unlikely that either maintenance area will exceed the CO NAAQS again. Thus, we believe that the revisions that New Hampshire has made to its maintenance plan will continue to protect the citizens of New Hampshire from high CO concentrations, and also conserve resources. V. Final Action EPA is approving revisions to the Nashua CO maintenance plan submitted by the State of New Hampshire on May 30, 2007. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's request to modify the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when contingency measures need to be implemented in Nashua. As described in more detail above, the State will shut down the Nashua CO monitor and rely on data from the CO monitor in Manchester to determine when and if monitoring will be reestablished in the Nashua maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the Nashua maintenance area. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective November 9, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by October 10, 2007. If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on November 9, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 9, 2007. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 22, 2007. Ira Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart EE—New Hampshire 2. Section 52.1528 is amended by adding paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 52.1528 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

(d)Approval—On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a modification to the Nashua maintenance plan approved in paragraph

(c)of this section. New Hampshire will not conduct CO monitoring in Nashua, but instead commits to continue to collect and review CO monitoring data from nearby Manchester, NH on an on-going basis. In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar year monitored in Manchester reaches 75 percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for CO, New Hampshire will, within 9 months of recording such concentrations, re-establish a CO monitoring site in Nashua consistent with EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those data. New Hampshire commits to implement its contingency program in Nashua in the event that a CO violation is monitored at the re-established Nashua monitoring site at any time during the maintenance period. If the Manchester CO monitor measures a violation of the either the federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, contingency measures will be implemented in Nashua as well, until a re-established CO monitor in Nashua shows that the area is in attainment of the CO standard. [FR Doc. E7-17633 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; FRL-8464-3] Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document corrects an error pertaining to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Belmont County, Ohio (Wheeling, WV-OH). The 2009 MVEB for oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) from the proposed rule was incorrect in the final action. This final rule corrects that error. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on September 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-3214, *marquardt.steve@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published four notices of final rulemaking to redesignate Washington County (Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH), Jefferson County (Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH), Belmont County (Wheeling, WV-OH), Stark County (Canton, OH) and Allen County (Lima, OH) areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. For each of these counties EPA had proposed approval of the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs. In each of the final rulemaking notices, EPA omitted the 2009 MVEBs from the final rules. A correction was made to add these 2009 MVEBs. When this correction was made there was an error in the 2009 MVEB for NO X for Belmont County, Ohio. This error is corrected in this action. Correction For Belmont County, Ohio, in the correction notice published in the **Federal Register** on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36599), on page 36599 in the third column, second full paragraph: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs * * *.” is to read: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. For Belmont County, Ohio, the 2009 MVEBs are 2.60 tons per day of VOC and 4.69 tons per day of NO X and the 2018 MVEBs are 1.52 tons per day of VOC and 1.91 tons per day of NO X . West Virginia develops MVEBs for its portion of the area.” EPA is revising 40 CFR Section 52.1885(ff)(2) to reflect this corrected 2009 MVEB for NO X for Belmont County, Ohio. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an error in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 *et seq.* ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of September 10, 2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for Ohio is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 24, 2007. Richard C. Karl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1885 is amended by revising paragraph (ff)(2) to read as follows: § 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

(ff)* * *

(2)Belmont County, as submitted on June 20, 2006, and supplemented on August 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 MVEBs for Belmont County of 2.60 tpd of VOC and 4.69 tpd of NO X , and 2018 MVEBs of 1.52 tpd of VOCs and 1.91 tpd of NO X . [FR Doc. E7-17627 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 48 CFR Parts 639 and 652 [Public Notice: 5929] RIN 1400-AC31 Department of State Acquisition Regulation AGENCY: State Department. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule adds a solicitation provision and contract clause to the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to implement Department of State requirements regarding security issues for information technology systems, as required by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective September 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., State Annex Number 6, Room 603, Washington, DC 20522-0602; telephone number: 703-516-1691; e-mail address: *ginesgg@state.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published a proposed rule, Public Notice 5836 at 72 FR 35023, June 26, 2007, with a request for comments. The rule was proposed to implement the information technology

(IT)security policies of the Department for contracts that include information technology resources for services in which the contractor has physical or electronic access to Department information that directly supports the mission of the Department. The rule was discussed in detail in Public Notice 5836. No public comments were received. The Department is now promulgating a final rule with no changes from the proposed rule. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets. Executive Order 12866 The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed this regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132—Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation. National Environmental Policy Act The Department has analyzed this regulation for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that it will not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 639 and 652 Government procurement. Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 639 and 652 continue to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2658. Subchapter F—Special Categories of Contracting PART 639—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2. A new Part 639, consisting of subpart 639.1, sections 639.107 and 639.107-70, is added to subchapter F as follows: PART 639—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Subpart 639.1—General 639.107 Contract clause. 639.107-70 DOSAR solicitation provision and contract clause.

(a)The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Accreditation, in solicitations that include information technology resources or services in which the contractor will have physical or electronic access to Department information that directly supports the mission of the Department.

(b)The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources, in solicitations and contracts containing the provision at 652.239-70. The provision and clause shall not be inserted in solicitations and contracts for personal services with individuals. Subchapter H—Clauses and Forms PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. Section 652.239-70 is added to read as follows: 652.239-70 Information Technology Security Plan and Accreditation. As prescribed in 639.107-70(a), insert the following provision: Information Technology Security Plan and Accreditation (SEP 2007) All offers/bids submitted in response to this solicitation must address the approach for completing the security plan and certification and accreditation requirements as required by the clause at 652.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources. (End of provision) 4. Section 652.239-71 is added to read as follows: 652.239-71 Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources. As prescribed in 639.107-70(b), insert the following clause: Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources (SEP 2007)

(a)*General.* The Contractor shall be responsible for information technology

(IT)security, based on Department of State

(DOS)risk assessments, for all systems connected to a Department of State

(DOS)network or operated by the Contractor for DOS, regardless of location. This clause is applicable to all or any part of the contract that includes information technology resources or services in which the Contractor has physical or electronic access to DOS's information that directly supports the mission of DOS. The term “information technology”, as used in this clause, means any equipment, including telecommunications equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. This includes both major applications and general support systems as defined by OMB Circular A-130. Examples of tasks that require security provisions include:

(1)Hosting of DOS e-Government sites or other IT operations;

(2)Acquisition, transmission or analysis of data owned by DOS with significant replacement cost should the Contractor's copy be corrupted; and

(3)Access to DOS general support systems/major applications at a level beyond that granted the general public; e.g., bypassing a firewall.

(b)*IT Security Plan.* The Contractor shall develop, provide, implement, and maintain an IT Security Plan. This plan shall describe the processes and procedures that will be followed to ensure appropriate security of IT resources that are developed, processed, or used under this contract. The plan shall describe those parts of the contract to which this clause applies. The Contractor's IT Security Plan shall comply with applicable Federal laws that include, but are not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 11331, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, and the E-Government Act of 2002. The plan shall meet IT security requirements in accordance with Federal and DOS policies and procedures, as they may be amended from time to time during the term of this contract that include, but are not limited to:

(1)OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;

(2)National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)Guidelines (see NIST Special Publication 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Technology Systems ( *http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-37/SP800-37-final.pdf* )); and

(3)Department of State information security sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual

(FAM)and Foreign Affairs Handbook

(FAH)( *http://foia.state.gov/Regs/Search.asp* ), specifically:

(i)12 FAM 230, Personnel Security;

(ii)12 FAM 500, Information Security (sections 540, 570, and 590);

(iii)12 FAM 600, Information Security Technology (section 620, and portions of 650);

(iv)5 FAM 1060, Information Assurance Management; and

(v)5 FAH 11, Information Assurance Handbook.

(c)*Submittal of IT Security Plan* . Within 30 days after contract award, the Contractor shall submit the IT Security Plan to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's Representative

(COR)for acceptance. This plan shall be consistent with and further detail the approach contained in the contractor's proposal or sealed bid that resulted in the award of this contract and in compliance with the requirements stated in this clause. The plan, as accepted by the Contracting Officer and COR, shall be incorporated into the contract as a compliance document. The Contractor shall comply with the accepted plan.

(d)*Accreditation.* Within six

(6)months after contract award, the Contractor shall submit written proof of IT security accreditation for acceptance by the Contracting Officer. Such written proof may be furnished either by the Contractor or by a third party. Accreditation must be in accordance with NIST Special Publication 800-37. This accreditation will include a final security plan, risk assessment, security test and evaluation, and disaster recovery plan/continuity of operations plan. This accreditation, when accepted by the Contracting Officer, shall be incorporated into the contract as a compliance document, and shall include a final security plan, a risk assessment, security test and evaluation, and disaster recovery/continuity of operations plan. The Contractor shall comply with the accepted accreditation documentation.

(e)*Annual verification.* On an annual basis, the Contractor shall submit verification to the Contracting Officer that the IT Security Plan remains valid.

(f)*Warning notices.* The Contractor shall ensure that the following banners are displayed on all DOS systems (both public and private) operated by the Contractor prior to allowing anyone access to the system: Government Warning **WARNING**WARNING**WARNING** Unauthorized access is a violation of U.S. law and Department of State policy, and may result in criminal or administrative penalties. Users shall not access other user's or system files without proper authority. Absence of access controls IS NOT authorization for access! DOS information systems and related equipment are intended for communication, transmission, processing and storage of U.S. Government information. These systems and equipment are subject to monitoring by law enforcement and authorized Department officials. Monitoring may result in the acquisition, recording, and analysis of all data being communicated, transmitted, processed or stored in this system by law enforcement and authorized Department officials. Use of this system constitutes consent to such monitoring. **WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**

(g)*Privacy Act notification.* The Contractor shall ensure that the following banner is displayed on all DOS systems that contain Privacy Act information operated by the Contractor prior to allowing anyone access to the system: This system contains information protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579). Any privacy information displayed on the screen or printed shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Employees who violate privacy safeguards may be subject to disciplinary actions, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

(h)*Privileged or limited privileged access.* Contractor personnel requiring privileged access or limited privileged access to systems operated by the Contractor for DOS or interconnected to a DOS network shall adhere to the specific contract security requirements contained within this contract and/or the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254).

(i)*Training.* The Contractor shall ensure that its employees performing under this contract receive annual IT security training in accordance with OMB circular A-130, FISMA, and NIST requirements, as they may be amended from time to time during the term of this contract, with a specific emphasis on rules of behavior.

(j)*Government access.* The Contractor shall afford the Government access to the Contractor's and subcontractor's facilities, installations, operations, documentation, databases and personnel used in performance of the contract. Access shall be provided to the extent required to carry out a program of IT inspection (to include vulnerability testing), investigation and audit to safeguard against threats and hazards to the integrity, availability and confidentiality of DOS data or to the function of information technology systems operated on behalf of DOS, and to preserve evidence of computer crime.

(k)*Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall incorporate the substance of this clause in all subcontracts that meet the conditions in paragraph

(a)of this clause.

(l)*Notification regarding employees.* The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer when an employee either begins or terminates employment when that employee has access to DOS information systems or data.

(m)*Termination.* Failure on the part of the Contractor to comply with the terms of this clause may result in termination of this contract. (End of clause) Dated: August 28, 2007. Corey M. Rindner, Procurement Executive, Bureau of Administration, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-17752 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [I.D. 041307D] RIN 0648-AU68 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area Fishery Resources; Notice of Amendment 80 Public Workshop AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of public workshop. SUMMARY: NMFS will present a public workshop on the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program (Program) for potentially eligible participants and other interested parties. The Program implements a limited access privilege program

(LAPP)for specific groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, discuss the key Program elements, describe the process for participating in the Program, and answer questions. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing this Program. DATES: The workshop will be held on Monday, September 24, 2007, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific standard time. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Swedish Cultural Center, 1920 Dexter Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or *glenn.merrill@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS will publish a final rule that will implement a LAPP for Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for BSAI Groundfish

(FMP)in mid-September, 2007. Among other things, Amendment 80 will allocate specific BSAI groundfish resources among a defined group of harvesters under a LAPP; limit the bycatch of halibut and crab resources; assign Amendment 80 quota share

(QS)that can be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege on an annual basis; allow Amendment 80 QS holders to form a cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis to receive an exclusive harvest privilege; implement use caps to limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person can hold; limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that could be taken by participants in the Program; ensure minimum retention of groundfish while fishing in the BSAI; and establish necessary monitoring and enforcement standards. Amendment 80 was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on June 9, 2006. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the Program on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 30052). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 80 on July 26, 2007. The Program implements Amendment 80 and also meets the requirements of: • Section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447; December 8, 2004), which defined the Amendment 80 sector and implemented a capacity reduction program for several catcher/processor sectors; • Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; July 11, 2006), which amended provisions of the Community Development Quota

(CDQ)Program in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and • The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007), which modified provisions related to the CDQ Program and instituted other measures applicable to LAPPs. NMFS is conducting a public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in reviewing the requirements of the Program. At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, and discuss the key Program elements, including quota share application; cooperative and limited access participation provisions; cooperative quota transfer provisions; the appeals process; monitoring and enforcement; and electronic reporting. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Special Accommodations This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Glenn Merrill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 5 working days before the workshop date. Dated: September 4, 2007. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-17772 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 174 Monday, September 10, 2007 Proposed Rules TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 18 CFR Part 1301 Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Proposed rule; comment request. SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) seeks public comment on a proposed rule that would govern access to TVA information and records in connection with legal proceedings in which neither the United States nor TVA is a party. The rule, tracking similar regulations issued by many other federal agencies, would establish guidelines for use in determining whether TVA employees will provide testimony or records relating to their official duties. The rule would also establish procedures for requesters to follow when making demands on or requests to a TVA employee for official documents or to provide testimony. The proposed rule will standardize TVA's past practices, promote uniformity in decisions, conserve the ability of TVA to conduct official business, preserve its employee resources, protect confidential information, provide guidance to requestors, minimize involvement in matters unrelated to TVA's mission and programs, avoid wasteful allocation of agency resources, and avoid spending public time and money for private purpose. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to the Office of the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 by mail or fax at

(865)632-4528. Comments may also be submitted electronically to *npgoschy@tva.gov* , with subject heading “Comment on Proposed Regulation.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas P. Goschy, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

(865)632-8960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background TVA regularly receives subpoenas and other informal requests for documents and requests for TVA employees to provide testimony or evidence in cases in which TVA is not a party. Sometimes these subpoenas or requests are for TVA records that are not available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. TVA also receives requests for TVA employees to appear as witnesses in litigation and to provide testimony relating to materials contained in TVA's official records or provide testimony or information acquired during the performance of the employees' official duties. Although many other Federal agencies currently have regulations in place to address these types of requests, and TVA itself has rules implementing the Freedom of Information Act that govern requests for information from the general public, TVA currently has no official regulations governing subpoenas and other information requests for document production and testimony of TVA employees in legal proceedings. Issues about such requests that have arisen in recent years warrant adoption of regulations governing their submission, evaluation, and processing. Responding to these requests is not only burdensome, but may also result in a significant disruption of a TVA employee's work schedule and possibly involve TVA in issues unrelated to its responsibilities. In order to resolve these issues, many agencies have issued regulations, similar to the proposed regulation, governing the circumstances and manner in which an employee may respond to demands for testimony or for the production of documents. Establishing uniform procedures for legal processes will ensure timely notice and promote centralized decision making. The United States Supreme Court upheld this type of regulation in *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen* , 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The proposed rule will formalize those past practices already utilized by TVA in responding to these types of requests when TVA is a not a party to the litigation. Briefly summarized, the proposed rule will prohibit disclosure of official records or testimony by TVA's employees, as defined in § 1301.52, unless there is compliance with the rule. The proposed rule sets out the information that requesters must provide and the factors that TVA will consider in making determinations in response to requests for testimony or the production of documents. The proposed rule sets forth TVA's standard practice of providing employee testimony by affidavit only and clarifies those steps requesters must follow in order to obtain official TVA documents, including how to accomplish service of process on TVA. The rule establishes a new practice that service can now be accomplished by United States mail. This rule applies to a range of matters in any legal proceeding in which TVA is not a named party. Current and former TVA employees will not provide testimony about specific matters involving information which they acquired during the performance of their official duties unless permitted to testify as provided in the rule. They would not be restricted from providing testimony on their own time about general matters unconnected with the specific TVA matters. This rule will ensure a more efficient use of TVA's resources, minimize the possibility of involving TVA in issues unrelated to its responsibilities, promote uniformity in responding to such subpoenas and like requests, and maintain the impartiality of TVA in matters that are in dispute between other parties. It will also serve TVA's interest in protecting sensitive, confidential, and privileged information and records that are generated in fulfillment of TVA's statutory responsibilities. This rule is internal and procedural rather than substantive. It does not create a right to obtain official records or the official testimony of a TVA employee nor does it create any additional right or privilege not already available to TVA to deny any demand or request for testimony or documents. Failure to comply with the procedures set out in these regulations would be a basis for denying a demand or request submitted to TVA. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 1301 Administrative practice and procedure. For the reasons stated in the preamble, TVA proposes to amend 18 CFR Chapter XIII, to read as follows: PART 1301—PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee, 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. Part 1301 is amended by adding subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D—Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings Sec. 1301.51 Purpose and scope. 1301.52 Definitions. 1301.53 General. 1301.54 Requirements for a demand for records or testimony. 1301.55 Responding to demands. 1301.56 Final determination. 1301.57 Waiver. Subpart D—Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings § 1301.51 Purpose and scope.

(a)*Purpose.* This part sets forth the procedures to be followed when TVA or a TVA employee is served with a demand to provide testimony and/or produce or disclose official information or records in a legal proceeding in which TVA or the United States is not a party, and where such appearance arises out of, or is related to, the individual's employment with TVA.

(b)*Scope.* This part applies when, in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other legal proceeding, a TVA employee is served with a demand to provide testimony concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of official status and/or to produce official information and/or records. § 1301.52 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part:

(a)*Appearance* means testimony or production of documents or other material, including an affidavit, deposition, interrogatory, declaration, or other required written submission.

(b)*Demand* means a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court of competent jurisdiction, or other specific authority (e.g. an administrative or State legislative body), for the production, disclosure, or release of TVA records or information or for the appearance of TVA personnel as witnesses in their official capacities.

(c)*Employee* means any members of the Board of Directors, officials, officers, directors, employees or agents of TVA, except as TVA may otherwise determine in a particular case, and includes former TVA employees to the extent that the information sought was acquired in the performance of official duties for TVA.

(d)*General Counsel* means the General Counsel of TVA or a person to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority under this part.

(e)*Legal proceeding* means any and all pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages of all judicial or administrative actions, hearings, investigations, or similar proceedings before courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, whether criminal, civil, or administrative in nature.

(f)*Records* or *official records and information* means all information in the custody and control of TVA, relating to information in the custody and control of TVA, or acquired by a TVA employee in performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status while the individual was employed by TVA.

(g)*Testimony* means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding. § 1301.53 General.

(a)No employee shall appear, in response to a demand for official records or information, in any proceeding to which this part applies to provide testimony and/or produce records or other official information without prior authorization as set forth in this part.

(b)This part is intended only to provide procedures for responding to demands for testimony or production of records or other official information, and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against TVA and the United States. § 1301.54 Requirements for a demand for records or testimony.

(a)*Service of demands.* Only TVA's General Counsel or his/her designee is authorized to receive and accept demands sought to be served upon TVA or its employees. All such documents should be delivered in person or by United States mail to the Office of the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

(b)*Time limit for serving demands.* The demand must be served at least 30 days prior to the scheduled date of testimony or disclosure of records, in order to ensure that the General Counsel has adequate time to consider the demand and prepare a response, except in cases of routine requests for personnel and payroll records located on-site in Knoxville, where service 15 days prior will normally be considered sufficient. The General Counsel may, upon request and for good cause shown, waive the requirement of this paragraph.

(c)*Form of Demand.* A demand for testimony or production of records or other official information must comply with the following requirements:

(1)The demand must be in writing and submitted to the General Counsel.

(2)The demand must include the following information:

(i)The caption of the legal proceeding, docket number, and name and address of the court or other authority involved.

(ii)If production or records or other official information is sought, a list of categories of records sought, a detailed description of how the information sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the records sought.

(iii)If testimony is sought, a description of the intended use of the testimony, a detailed description of how the testimony sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the testimony sought.

(iv)A statement as to how the need for the information outweighs any need to maintain the confidentiality of the information and outweighs the burden on TVA to produce the documents or testimony.

(v)A statement indicating that the information sought is not available from another source, from other persons or entities, or from the testimony of someone other than a TVA employee, such as a retained expert.

(vi)The name, address, and telephone number of counsel to each party in the case.

(d)TVA reserves the right to require additional information to complete the request where appropriate or to waive any of the requirements of this section at its sole discretion. § 1301.55 Responding to demands. Generally, authorization to provide the requested material or testimony shall not be withheld unless their disclosure is prohibited by law or for other compelling reasons, provided the request is reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of this part, and subject to the following conditions:

(a)*Demands for testimony.* TVA's practice is to provide requested testimony of TVA employees by affidavit only. TVA will provide affidavit testimony in response to demands for such testimony, provided all requirements of this part are met and there is no compelling factor under paragraph

(c)of this section that requires the testimony to be withheld. The General Counsel may waive this restriction when necessary.

(b)*Demands for production of records or official information.* TVA's practice is to provide requested records or official information, provided all requirements of this part are met and there is no compelling factor under paragraph

(c)of this section that requires the records or official information to be withheld.

(c)*Factors to be considered in determining whether requested testimony or records or official information must be withheld.* The General Counsel shall consider the following factors, among others, in deciding whether requested testimony or materials must be withheld:

(1)Whether production is appropriate in light of any relevant privilege;

(2)Whether production is appropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the procedures governing the case or matter in which the demand arose;

(3)Whether the material requested is relevant to the matter at issue;

(4)Whether allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;

(5)Whether disclosure would violate a statute, Executive Order, or regulation, including, but not limited to, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a;

(6)Whether disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceeding, or compromise constitutional rights or national security interests;

(7)Whether disclosure would improperly reveal trade secrets or proprietary confidential information without the owner's consent;

(8)Whether disclosure would unduly interfere with the orderly conduct of TVA's functions;

(9)Whether the records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;

(10)Whether disclosure would result in TVA appearing to favor one litigant over another;

(11)Whether the demand or request is within the authority of the party making it; and

(12)Whether a substantial Government interest is implicated.

(d)*Restrictions on testimony or production of records or official information.* When necessary or appropriate, the General Counsel may impose restrictions or conditions on the production of testimony or records or official information. These restrictions may include, but are not limited to:

(1)Limiting the area of testimony;

(2)Requiring that the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding agree to keep the testimony under seal;

(3)Requiring that the testimony be used or made available only in the legal proceeding for which it was requested;

(4)Requiring that the parties to the legal proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure of produced records or official information.

(e)*Fees for Production.* Fees will be charged for production of TVA records and information. The fees will be the same as those charged by TVA pursuant to its Freedom of Information Act regulations, 16 CFR. 1301.10. § 1301.56 Final determination. The General Counsel makes the final determination whether a demand for testimony or production of records or official testimony in a legal proceeding in which TVA is not a party shall be granted. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the General Counsel. The General Counsel will notify the requesting party and, when necessary, the court or other authority of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the request, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the production of testimony or records or official information. § 1301.57 Waiver. The General Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described by this part where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of TVA or the United States, or for other good cause. Maureen H. Dunn, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-17722 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497; A-1-FRL-8463-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Nashua AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This SIP submittal contains revisions to the carbon monoxide

(CO)maintenance plan for Nashua, New Hampshire. Specifically, New Hampshire has revised the contingency plan portion of the original maintenance plan. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of this revision to the Nashua CO maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *arnold.anne@epa.gov,* Fax:

(617)918-0047. 3. *Mail:* “EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497,” Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number

(617)918-1045, fax number

(617)918-0045, e-mail *judge.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: August 22, 2007. Ira Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-17635 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 87-268; FCC 07-138] Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Commission adopts an *Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (Eighth Further NPRM), to announce tentative channel designations

(TCDs)for three new permittees that have recently attained permittee status. The Eighth Further NPRM identifies these permittees together with the channel we propose to assign the permittee and the specific technical facilities at which we propose to allow these stations to operate after the DTV transition. In addition, the *Eighth Further NPRM* identifies a number of proposals for revisions to the proposed DTV Table of Allotments and/or Appendix B reflected in the Seventh Report and Order that was adopted simultaneously with this *Eighth Further NPRM* . These proposed revisions were advanced by commenters in either reply comments or late-filed comments in response to the *Seventh Further NPRM* . As these comments propose changes to the DTV Table of Allotments and/or Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order that could affect other stations that may not have had adequate notice of these proposals, we identify these proposals to give affected stations an opportunity to comment. DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before October 10, 2007; reply comments are due on or before October 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 87-268, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kim Matthews, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,

(202)418-2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Eighth Further Notice of Purpose Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 87-268, FCC 07-138, adopted August 1, 2007, and released August 6, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS ( *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Summary of the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. The *Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in this proceeding, 71 FR 66592, November 15, 2006 (Seventh Further NPRM) finalized the DTV channel election process and began the final stage of the transition of the nation's broadcast television system from analog to digital technology. Although virtually all potentially eligible stations were assigned TCDs at that time, the *Seventh Further NPRM* noted that some applications for station licenses remained pending, and might be granted before the adoption of the Order in this proceeding. Some of these new permittee TCDs were granted too late to allow sufficient opportunity for public comment in the *Seventh Further NPRM* rulemaking. In addition, several commenters submitted requests for substantive modifications to the DTV Table of Allotments or Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order after the close of the comment period. The Commission therefore issues this *Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , and solicits comment on the TCDs and modification requests discussed below. We emphasize that in this Eighth Further NPRM deals exclusively with the stations described below. All comments and reply comments should relate solely to the specific situations and issues raised herein. No further proposals for modification of the DTV Table of Allotments or Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order will be entertained during this pleading cycle, and no such proposals should be raised during the comment or reply period. New Permittees 2. As described in the *Seventh Further NPRM* , we are establishing a separate pleading cycle to give interested parties an opportunity for comment on new permittees that have attained permittee status too late to be considered in the *Seventh Report and Order* (published elsewhere in this issue). Three new permittees have attained this status since we issued the New Permittees PN: Entravision Holdings, LLC, in Pueblo, Colorado (Analog channel 48), Richland Reserve, LLC in Greeley, Colorado (Digital channel 45), and Northwest Television, Inc. (Northwest Television) in Galesburg, Illinois (Digital channel 53). Post-transition, channel 48 in Pueblo would create no additional interference, and we therefore propose channel 48 as this station's TCD. Interference analysis indicates, however, that post-transition, channel 45 in Greeley would cause 0.3 percent new interference. Therefore, we propose channel 49 as the TCD Richland Reserve, LLC. With respect to the new permittee in Galesburg, IL, because channel 53 is an out-of-core channel, an engineering analysis was conducted and it was determined that channel 8 is the best available post-transition channel in Galesburg. Channel 8 creates no new interference to the TCD of another full-power station but would interfere with licensed Class A Station WQFL-CA, Rockford, IL. However, WQFL has an application for a minor modification of license pending, which would require a waiver of the filing freeze but which, if granted, would eliminate the interference from channel 8. In order to locate an interference-free post-transition channel for Galesburg, we propose to grant WQFL-CA a waiver of the filing freeze and grant the WQFL-CA modification application, thereby resolving any potential interference, and propose channel 8 as the TCD for Northwest Television. These proposals will further amend the new DTV Table of Allotments. In addition, we propose the specific technical facilities—effective radiated power (ERP), antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), antenna radiation pattern, and geographic coordinates—at which these stations would operate after the DTV transition. The attachment also includes information on predicted service area and population coverage. Consistent with the *Seventh Further NPRM* , the Commission hereby invites public comment on these proposed changes to the new DTV Table of Allotments. Late-Filed Requests for Changes to the Table of Allotments and Appendix B 3. As noted above, several stations filed requests for revisions to the proposed DTV Table of Allotments and/or Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order either during the reply comment period or after the close of the filing period. In order to facilitate a rapid transition, late-filed requests for minor adjustments or changes necessary for the station to replicate have been granted where they were unopposed and cause no impermissible interference to any other station. In some cases, although the Commission would have looked favorably on the proposal had it been timely filed, we find it necessary to provide a full opportunity to comment. This is particularly the case where the proposed changes to the DTV Table of Allotments and/or Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order could affect other stations. This *Eighth Further NPRM* identifies these late-filed requested changes, and seeks comment. 1. Request To Make Changes That Meet the Interference Criteria 4. *WTXF, Philadelphia, PA* . Fox Television Stations of Philadelphia, Inc. (Fox Philadelphia), licensee of station WTXF-TV, channel 29, and WTXF-DT, channel 42, Philadelphia, PA, received channel 42 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. In late-filed comments, Fox Philadelphia asserts that the parameters described in Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order reflect out-of-date information, and requests that they be revised to match its CP for its authorized facility, which will replicate its analog facilities. Fox Philadelphia states that it is completing construction and expects to apply for the license to cover later this summer. We find analyzed the requested facilities for post-transition operation, and we find that WTXF would cause 1.31 percent interference to WMPT, Annapolis, MD (analog channel 22, post-transition digital channel 42), 0.58 percent interference to WSAH, Bridgeport, CT (analog channel 43, post-transition digital channel 42), and 0.86 percent interference to WNJT, Trenton, NJ (analog channel 52, post-transition digital channel 43). Because this request was filed too late to ensure a full opportunity for comment, and particularly in light of the predicted interference, we invite comment on this request in this *Eighth Further NPRM* . 5. *WDCA, Washington, DC* . Fox Television Stations, Inc., (Fox), licensee of station WDCA-TV, channel 20, and WDCA-DT, channel 35, Washington DC, received channel 35 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. Fox filed late comments requesting that the Commission modify Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order to reflect WDCA's actual, authorized facilities. WDCA-DT has a construction permit, FCC File No. BMPCDT-20060519ACK, that specifies facilities at its main studio where WDCA-DT is currently “located, authorized and operating,” and WDCA-DT has applied for a license to cover that Construction Permit, FCC File No. BLCDT-20070411AAH. As noted by Fox, previous engineering analysis had indicated that this location and these parameters cause no impermissible interference. The Commission proposes to grant this request and adjust the DTV Table of Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order accordingly. Therefore, we solicit comments on this proposal. 2. Request for Modified Coverage Area 6. *KOAM, Pittsburg, KS* . Saga Quad States Communications (Saga), licensee of station KOAM-TV, channel 7, and KOAM-DT, channel 13, Pittsburg, KS, received channel 7 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. Saga states that its current Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order parameters would allow it to reach only 83 percent of the audience it currently serves with its analog signal. Saga requests a revision to specify directional facilities for KOAM at an ERP of 15.33 kW, in order to more closely replicate its analog Grade B contour. Saga's internal engineering study indicates that use of a directional antenna would prevent any station from receiving impermissible interference, while still allowing KOAM to reach 94.4 percent of people reached by its analog transmitter, an outcome it argues is in the public interest. We have analyzed KOAM's request and recalculated their Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order facilities based on replicating the analog coverage that was used to determine their initial DTV Table of Allotments facilities. We propose to adjust the DTV Table of Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order accordingly and solicit comments on this proposal. 3. Requests for Alternative Channel Assignments 7. *KOLO, Reno, NV* . Gray Television Licensee, Inc. (Gray), licensee of station KOLO-TV, channel 8, and KOLO-DT, channel 9, Reno, NV, received channel 9 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. Gray currently broadcasts from the same antenna on its NTSC channel 8 and DTV channel 9. Gray states that its antenna has been optimized for channel 8 for over 45 years, and Gray expresses concern that attempting to retune the antenna for use on its TCD channel 9 could lead to serious engineering difficulties. Gray therefore requests that KOLO's TCD be changed to permit it to return to its NTSC channel 8 post-transition. Engineering analysis indicates that this proposal by Gray would cause no additional interference. The Commission proposes to grant this request and adjust the DTV Table of Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order accordingly. Therefore, we solicit comments on this proposal. 8. *WEHT, Evansville, IN.* Gilmore Broadcasting Corporation (Gilmore), licensee of station WEHT, channel 25, and WEHT-DT, channel 59, Evansville, IN, received channel 25 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. Gilmore filed reply comments stating that WEHT could not serve its entire analog area using the TCD and parameters in the DTV Table of Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order. It proposes to change its TCD to channel 7 and adjust its parameters. Gilmore states that these proposed changes will increase its service area and eliminate the interference with WRTV-DT Indianapolis, IN (analog channel 6, post-transition digital channel 25) that would be caused by operating on channel 25. Engineering analysis shows that Gilmore's proposed alternative channel would cause no additional interference. The Commission proposes to grant this request and adjust the DTV Table of Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order accordingly. Therefore, we solicit comments on this proposal. 9. *KTRV, Nampa, ID.* Idaho Independent Television, Inc. (IIT), licensee of KTRV, channel 12, and KTRV-DT, Nampa, Idaho, received channel 12 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. IIT filed late comments stating that it wishes to retain its existing DTV facilities for post-transition operation, and requests that Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order be revised to reflect those facilities. IIT requests its TCD be changed to channel 13 and its antenna ID to 28309. IIT states “[t]hese licensed facilities already have passed Canadian review once before, so further international coordination should be minimal.” IIT makes no representation, however, about post-transition interference. In response to IIT's request, we studied KTRV's post-transition operation on channel 13 and propose to grant their requested channel change. We seek comment on this proposal. 10. *WUOA, Tuscaloosa, AL.* The University of Alabama, singleton licensee of analog station WUOA, channel 23, Tuscaloosa, AL, received channel 23 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. The University of Alabama filed an *ex parte* in June 2007 seeking a channel change to a low VHF channel. The comment explained that the limited resources of the public university would be most efficiently used by broadcasting on a VHF channel, because of the lower cost of construction and operation of a VHF station as compared to a UHF station. We have considered and studied the University of Alabama's request, and propose replication facilities for WUOA on channel 6. Engineering analysis shows that this alternative channel will cause no additional interference. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 4. Other Requests 11. *WPCW, Jeannette, PA.* CBS Corporation (CBS), parent company of the licensee of Station WPCW, channel 19, and applicant for construction permit for a DTV station on channel 49, Jeannette, PA, received channel 49 for its TCD in the proposed DTV Table of Allotments. CBS requests a change in the parameters in the proposed Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order for WPCW to reflect those approved by the Commission in its 2006 decision amending the pre-transition DTV Table of Allotments to substitute channel 49 for channel 30 as the digital frequency for WPCW and reallotting DTV channel 49 from Johnstown, Pennsylvania to Jeannette. Larry L. Schrecongost (Schrecongost), licensee of Class A television Station WLLS, channel 49, Indiana, Pennsylvania, opposes the CBS request and argues that the proposed DTV Table of Allotments should specify channel 30 rather than channel 49 for WPCW. Schrecongost has also filed a petition for reconsideration of the *2006 Report and Order,* 71 FR 8986, February 22, 2006, which is currently pending. 12. In 1999, the former licensee of WPCW filed a petition for rule making seeking to modify the station's DTV allotment from channel 30 to channel 49 and to change the station's digital community of license from Johnstown to Jeannette. That petition was subsequently amended to specify a new reference site. The petition for rule making was pending at the time the former licensee of WPCW certified to replication on FCC Form 381. Based on the pending rule making, WPCW elected channel 49 in the first round of the channel election process. The *Seventh Further NPRM* specifies channel 49 for WPCW but lists technical parameters consistent with replication on channel 49 of the WPCW initial DTV allotment which was based on its analog facility. In the *2006 Report and Order,* the Commission granted the WPCW rule making petition and, in addition to the channel change from 30 to 49, the Commission approved the requested site change for WPCW as well as an increase in ERP and other technical changes. 13. CBS argues in its comments that the DTV Table of Allotments should reflect the revised parameters approved for WPCW in the *2006 Report and Order.* Schrecongost argues that the Commission erred in granting the channel change and site change for WPCW as operation of that station on channel 49 in Jeannette would cause interference to WLLS in violation of the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA). The CBPA gave certain low power television

(LPTV)stations, known as Class A stations, some limited protection from interference by full-service stations. 14. We have determined that operation of WPCW on channel 49 at the site and parameters approved in the *2006 Report and Order* would cause interference to the TCDs of two full-power stations in excess of the 0.1 percent standard for new interference that applies during the channel election process. Specifically, operation of WPCW on channel 49 would cause 1.61 percent new interference to WTAP, Parkersburg, WV (analog channel 15, post-transition digital channel 49), and 0.7 percent new interference to WPXI, Pittsburgh, PA (analog channel 11, post-transition digital channel 48). 15. In light of the interference caused by WPCW on channel 49, we propose to provide WPCW with an alternative channel that would resolve this interference. Specifically, we propose to allot channel 11 to WPCW with the site location specified in the *2006 Report and Order.* The specific technical facilities we propose for WPCW on channel 11 at this location are reflected in Appendix G, *infra.* Our analysis shows that operation of WPCW on channel 11 will not cause interference to the post-transition facilities of full power stations, nor to WLLS, the Class A station. 16. We believe that this proposal is consistent with our objectives in this proceeding. Operation of WPCW on channel 11 instead of channel 49 would reduce the interference caused to other facilities, consistent with our goal of efficient spectrum use. In addition, changing the WPCW allotment from channel 49 to channel 11 would resolve the challenge by Class A station WLLS to the decision reached in the *2006 Report and Order.* Resolving this challenge avoids a potentially protracted appeal of the *2006 Report and Order* and furthers our goal of finalizing DTV channels and facilities to permit stations to construct their post-transition facilities by the rapidly approaching transition deadline. 17. *WGNO and WNOL, New Orleans, LA.* Tribune (licensee of station WGNO, channel 26, permittee of WGNO-DT, channel 15, with TCD on channel 26, New Orleans, LA, and station WNOL, channel 38, and permittee of WNOL-DT, channel 40, New Orleans, LA, with TCD on channel 15) filed late comments requesting a change in technical parameters for both stations. Tribune proposes to operate both WGNO and WNOL from the WDSU transmitter site and tower, 3.7 km from the WGNO/WNOL transmission site destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Tribune proposes that WGNO and WNOL will share the antenna with WDSU (analog channel 6, pre- and post-transition digital channel 43). Tribune contends that operating their stations from this site will streamline their application process and allow Tribune to restore digital service to the New Orleans market more quickly. 18. We have considered and studied Tribune's request, and we find that the proposed parameters do not cause impermissible interference to any station. However, we find that the proposed parameters for both stations would exceed their authorized contours, in violation of the freeze. In light of the unusual circumstances that affect these stations due to the destruction of both stations' analog and digital facilities, and the licensee's desire to relocate the transmitter to reduce the risk of damage from future hurricanes, we propose to waive the freeze and substitute the technical parameters requested in the late-filed comments. We seek comment on this proposal. Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA)relating to this *Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 20. This *Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* has been analyzed with respect to the PRA and does not contain proposed information collection requirements. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. Ex Parte Rules 21. *Permit-But-Disclose.* This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding subject to the “permit-but-disclose” requirements under § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. *Ex parte* presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one-or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b). Filing Requirements 22. *Comments and Replies.* Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before October 10, 2007; reply comments are due on or before October 25, 2007 using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of *before* entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 23. *Availability of Documents.* Comments, reply comments, and *ex parte* submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 24. *Accessibility Information.* To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format

(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov.* Additional Information 25. For more information on this *Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* please contact Kim Matthews, Policy Division, Media Bureau at

(202)418-2154, Gordon Godfrey, Engineering Division, Media Bureau at

(202)418-2193, or Nazifa Sawez, Engineering Division, Media Bureau at

(202)418-7059. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended

(RFA)the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Eighth Further NPRM* provided in paragraph 163 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the *Eighth Further NPRM,* including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the *Eighth Further NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules 27. The *Eighth Further NPRM* proposes modifications to the new Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments and Appendix B as in the Seventh Report and Order (DTV Table of Allotments). Three new full power permittees and six existing full power licensees and permittees are provided with channels and parameters for digital broadcast operations after the DTV transition. Changes to the new post-transition DTV Table of Allotments affects full power commercial and noncommercial broadcast television stations as the new DTV Table of Allotments provides post-transition channels for all eligible full power stations and changes to the DTV Table of Allotments may have interference or other implications for other broadcasters in the DTV Table of Allotments. 28. The Commission announced in the *Seventh Further NPRM* that, to the extent possible, it would accommodate future new permittees in the new Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, but that it would provide an opportunity for public comment before doing so. Three new construction permits were issued to permittees too late to be offered for comment in an earlier Public Notice, but can be accommodated in the new DTV Table of Allotments without causing impermissible interference. Six existing licensees and permittees made late-filed requests for modifications to the new DTV Table of Allotments. Although these requested changes are unopposed, appear non-controversial, and would have been looked upon favorably had they been timely-filed, we find it appropriate to provide a full opportunity for comment. 29. We believe these proposed modifications to the new Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments support the goals set forth for the channel election process. By these proposed modifications, the new permittees are provided with channels for DTV operations after the transition. Where adjustments bring the DTV Table of Allotments into line with the facilities or service areas of existing licensees or permittees, they recognize industry expectations and respect investments already made. These proposals also move the overall Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments more quickly towards finality without sacrificing clarity or transparency. Finally, we believe the proposed changes reflects our efforts to promote overall spectrum efficiency and, in particular, to ensure the best possible DTV service to the public. B. Legal Basis 30. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 31. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The proposed rules in this *Eighth Further NPRM* , if adopted, will primarily affect television stations. A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below. 32. *Television Broadcasting.* The proposed rules and policies in this *Eighth Further NPRM* apply to television broadcast licensees and potential licensees of television service. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $13.5 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,376. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, MAPro Television Database

(BIA)on March 30, 2007, about 986 of an estimated 1,374 commercial television stations (or about 72 percent) have revenues of $13.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. 33. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 34. *Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations.* The rules and policies proposed in this *Eighth Further NPRM* do not directly affect low power television stations, as the DTV Table of Allotments to which changes are being proposed will finalize post-transition digital channels only for full power television stations. Nonetheless, as discussed in section E, *infra* , low power television stations will also eventually transition from analog to digital technology and may be indirectly affected by the channel allotment decisions herein. The broadcast stations indirectly affected include licensees of Class A TV stations, low power television

(LPTV)stations, and TV translator stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $13.5 million in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 licensed LPTV stations, and 4,518 licensed TV translators. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of less than $13.5 million and thus may be categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be considered. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 35. The proposals set forth in this *Eighth Further NPRM* would involve no changes to reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements beyond what is already required under the current regulations. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 36. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 37. The proposed changes will allow the new Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments to provide all eligible broadcast television stations—large and small alike—with channels for post-transition DTV operations. No distinction was made between large and small licensees and permittees when determining which proposals to include in the *Eighth Further NPRM* . Small broadcasters, just like large ones, benefited from participating in the channel election process, and had an equal opportunity to review the proposed DTV Table of Allotments and request modifications. The TCDs and parameters proposed are based almost entirely on elections by licensees. All stations affected by the proposals in the *Eighth Further NPRM* will have the opportunity to comment, and the Commission will consider all comments, including those proposing alternative allotments for specific stations. No alternative to existing proposals for specific modifications to the DTV Table of Allotments for purposes of DTV allotments are proposed herein. In general, the transition procedures utilized in selecting final DTV allotments have been sufficiently transparent and flexible and eligible applicants for post-transition DTV allotments have been provided with the opportunity to make elections and to suggest alternative allotments. 38. The *Eighth Further NPRM* invites comment from broadcasters, including small broadcasters, on the proposed modifications to the new Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments. In addition, we invite comment on other ways in which we could consider the particular needs and interests of small businesses in finalizing the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments. 39. The new DTV Table of Allotments for which the *Eighth Further NPRM* proposes modifications does not provide for channels for low power television stations. The Commission will address the digital transition for low power television

(LPTV)stations in a separate proceeding. The statutory transition deadline established by Congress in 2006—February 17, 2009—applies only to full-power stations. One of the Commission's goals in this proceeding is to permit full power stations to finalize their post-transition facilities by this rapidly approaching deadline. The Commission previously determined that it has discretion under 47 U.S.C. 336(f)(4) to set the date by which analog operations of stations in the low power and translator service must cease. The Commission has stated that the intent is to ensure that low power and translator stations not be required to prematurely convert to digital operation in a manner that could disrupt their analog service or, more importantly, that might cause them to cease operation. The Commission decided not to establish a fixed termination date for the low power digital television transition until it resolved the issues concerning the transition of full-power television stations. The Commission has recognized that low power television stations are a valuable component of the nation's television system and has stated its intention to facilitate, wherever possible, the digital transition of these stations. F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals None. Ordering Clauses 40. *It is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 151, 154(i) and (j), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337, this *Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted* . 41. *It is further ordered* that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303a, 303b, and 307, the Commission's rules *are hereby amended* as set forth in Appendix A. 42. *It is further ordered* that the rules as revised in Appendix A of the *Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making shall be effective* October 10, 2007. 43. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this *Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *It is further ordered* that the Commission *shall send* a copy of this *Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Television. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 to read as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 2. Section 73.622 is amended by adding paragraph

(i)to read as follows: § 73.622 Digital television table of allotments.

(i)Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments. Community Channel No. ALABAMA Tuscaloosa 6 COLORADO Greeley 49 Pueblo 48 IDAHO Nampa 13 ILLINOIS Galesburg 8 INDIANA Evansville 7 NEVADA Reno 8 PENNSYLVANIA Jeannette 11 Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appendix G—Proposed DTV Table of Allotments Information Facility ID State City NTSC Chan DTV Chan ERP

(kW)HAAT

(m)Antenna ID Latitude (DDMMSS) Longitude (DDDMMSS) Area (sq km) Population (thousand) Percent interference received 77496 AL Tuscaloosa 23 6 1 266 80096 330315 873257 18093 595 0 166510 CO Greeley 49 1000 382 402448 1041940 32251 2400 0 166331 CO Pueblo 48 48 50 695 80244 384442 1045137 20898 906 0.8 51567 DC Washington 20 35 500 227 385722 770459 20241 6949 0.2 28230 ID Nampa 12 13 17 829 434518 1160552 41141 555 0 81946 IL Galesburg 8 15 333 80193 411844 902245 24719 795 0.7 24215 IN Evansville 25 7 3.2 301 80191 375157 873404 21506 699 0.1 58552 KS Pittsburg 7 7 15.5 332 80204 371315 944225 29053 543 0.7 54280 LA New Orleans 38 15 775 286 80216 295659 895728 24543 1724 0 72119 LA New Orleans 26 26 1000 286 80217 295659 895728 24703 1734 0 63331 NV Reno 8 8 15.6 893 80185 391849 1195300 39660 667 2.6 69880 PA Jeannette 19 11 6.5 303 80099 402334 794654 21639 2960 0.1 51568 PA Philadelphia 29 42 1000 281 43286 400226 751419 20599 7425 6.9 [FR Doc. E7-17643 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 174 Monday, September 10, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2007-0029] Notice of Request for a Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection (Marking, Labeling, and Packaging) AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)is announcing its intention to request a revision of an approved information collection concerning the regulatory requirements for marking, labeling, and packaging of meat, poultry, and egg products because of revised estimates, which support a finding of more total burden hours. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before November 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand- or courier-delivered items:* Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2534 South Building, Washington, DC 20250. • *Electronic mail:* *fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulation.gov* and in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2007-0029 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number. All comments submitted in response to this document, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments will also be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/regulations_directives_&_notices/index.asp.* Individuals who do not wish FSIS to post their personal contact information—mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number—on the Internet may leave the information off their comments. For Additional Information: Contact John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3532 South Building, Washington, DC 20250,

(202)720-0345. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Marking, Labeling, and Packaging. *OMB Number:* 0583-0092. *Expiration Date of Approval:* 12/31/2007. *Type of Request:* Revision of an approved information collection. *Abstract:* FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act

(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451, *et seq.* ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act

(EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031, *et seq.* ). FSIS protects the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS is requesting revision of an approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements specified in the regulations relating to marking, labeling, and packaging of meat, poultry, and egg products. To control the manufacture of marking devices bearing official marks, FSIS requires official meat and poultry establishments and the manufacturers of such devices to submit an Authorization Certificate to the Agency. Such certification is necessary to help prevent the manufacture and use of counterfeit marks of inspection (9 CFR 312.1 & 381.96). Meat and poultry establishments and egg products plants must develop labels (9 CFR 317.4, 381.115, & 590.410) in accordance with FSIS regulations. To receive approval for such labels, establishments must complete a form. Respondents also submit, in addition to the form, duplicate sketch copies of the labels. The establishment must maintain a copy of all the labeling used, along with product formulation and processing procedures. Previously approved labeling that contains changes such as holiday season designs, addition or deletion of coupons, UPC production codes, or recipe suggestions; newly assigned or revised establishment numbers; changes in the arrangement or language of directions for opening containers or serving the product; or the substitution of abbreviations for words or vice versa, do not need additional FSIS approval (9 CFR 317.5). Establishments must keep a copy of the labeling used, along with the product formulation and processing procedures on file. FSIS requires establishments to keep a written guaranty on file to demonstrate that the packaging material they use to package product is safe and will not adulterate product (9 CFR 312.1 and 381.96). Poultry establishments producing Mechanically Separated (Kind of Poultry) must have adequate controls in place, including recordkeeping, to ensure that such product complies with the Agency's requirements (9 CFR 381.173). The Agency is revising the information collection based on revised estimates of the number of establishments and the time necessary to complete forms, which support a finding of more total burden hours (85,508) than there are in the approved information collection (82,348). FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment: *Estimate of Burden:* FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of 30 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Official meat and poultry establishments, official egg plants, and foreign establishments. *Estimated No. of Respondents:* 7,536. *Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent:* 21.7. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 85,508 hours. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3532 South Building, Washington, DC 20250,

(202)720-0345. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(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 establishments, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2007_Notices_Index/index.asp.* FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The Update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-17735 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Headquarters office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA. This meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. During this meeting Provincial Advisory Committee members will share information on new developments relating to the Northwest Forest Plan, receive an update on the Travel Management Plan, the Recreation Site Facilities Master Plan, the Tripod Fire salvage process, and learn about a conservation community wilderness proposal. All Eastern Washington Cascades and Yakima Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this meeting to Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509-664-9200. Dated: September 5, 2007. Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. [FR Doc. 07-4414 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 47

Traces to 47 documents