Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

40,661 words·~185 min read·/register/2008/02/07/08-569

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 26 Thursday, February 7, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1260 [No. LS-07-0141] Beef Promotion and Research; Reapportionment AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust representation on the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Board), established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act), to reflect changes in cattle inventories and cattle and beef imports that have occurred since the most recent Board reapportionment rule became effective in February of 2005.

These adjustments are required by the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) and would result in an increase in Board membership from 104 to 106, effective with the Department of Agriculture's (Department) appointments for terms beginning early in the year 2009. DATES: Written comments must be received by March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments must be posted online at *www.regulations.gov* or sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; or fax to

(202)720-1125. All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection at the aforementioned address, as well as on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, on 202/720-1115, fax 202/720-1125, or by e-mail at *Kenneth.Payne@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 11 of the Act provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened. In the February 2007 publication of “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” the Department's National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)estimates that in 2006 the number of operations in the United States with cattle totaled approximately 970,000. The majority of these operations that are subject to the Order may be classified as small entities. The proposed rule imposes no new burden on the industry. It only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic cattle inventory and cattle and beef imports. The adjustments are required by the Order and would result in an increase in Board membership from 104 to 106. Background and Proposed Action The Board was initially appointed August 4, 1986, pursuant to the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911) and the Order issued thereunder. Domestic representation on the Board is based on cattle inventory numbers, and importer representation is based on the conversion of the volume of imported cattle, beef, or beef products into live animal equivalencies. Section 1260.141(b) of the Order provides that the Board shall be composed of cattle producers and importers appointed by the Department from nominations submitted by certified producer organizations. A producer may only be nominated to represent the unit in which that producer is a resident. Section 1260.141(c) of the Order provides that at least every 3 years and not more than every 2 years, the Board shall review the geographic distribution of cattle inventories throughout the United States and the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products and, if warranted, shall reapportion units and/or modify the number of Board members from units in order to reflect the geographic distribution of cattle production volume in the United States and the volume of cattle, beef, or beef products imported into the United States. Section 1260.141(d) of the Order authorizes the Board to recommend to the Department modifications to the number of cattle per unit necessary for representation on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that each geographic unit or State that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000 head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2) provides that States that do not have total cattle inventories equal to or greater than 500,000 head shall be grouped, to the extent practicable, into geographically-contiguous units, each of which have a combined total inventory of not less than 500,000 head. Such grouped units are entitled to at least one representative on the Board. Each unit that has an additional 1 million head of cattle within a unit qualifies for additional representation on the Board as provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). As provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers are represented by a single unit, with the number of Board members based on a conversion of the total volume of imported cattle, beef, or beef products into live animal equivalencies. The initial Board appointed in 1986 was composed of 113 members. Reapportionment, based on a 3-year average of cattle inventory numbers and import data, reduced the Board to 111 members in 1990 and 107 members in 1993 before the Board was increased to 111 members in 1996. The Board was decreased to 110 members in 1999, 108 members in 2001, 104 members in 2005, and will be increased to 106 members with appointments for terms effective early in 2009. The current Board representation by States or units was based on an average of the January 1, 2002, 2003, and 2004, inventory of cattle in the various States as reported by NASS. Current importer representation was based on a combined total average of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 live cattle imports as published by the Department's Foreign Agricultural Service and the average of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 live animal equivalents for imported beef products. Recommendations concerning Board reapportionment were presented to the Board at its September 20, 2007, meeting, and were approved by the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board, on October 16, 2007. In considering reapportionment, the Board reviewed cattle inventories as well as cattle, beef, and beef product import data for the period of January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007. The Board recommended that a 3-year average of cattle inventories and import numbers should be continued. The Board determined that an average of the January 1, 2005, 2006, and 2007, Department cattle inventory numbers would best reflect the number of cattle in each State or unit since publication of the last reapportionment rule published in 2005. The Board reviewed data published by the Department's Economic Research Service to determine proper importer representation. The Board recommended the use of a combined total of the average of the 2004, 2005, and 2006, cattle import data and the average of the 2004, 2005, and 2006, live animal equivalents for imported beef products. The method used to calculate the total number of live animal equivalents was the same as that used in the previous reapportionment of the Board, except that the live animal equivalent weight was changed in 2006 from 509 pounds to 592 pounds. The recommendation for importer representation is based on the most recent 3-year average of data available to the Board at its September 20, 2007, meeting to be consistent with the procedures used for domestic representation. The Board's recommended reapportionment plan would increase the number of representatives on the Board from 104 to 106. One State—Nebraska—would gain one member. The importer unit would also gain one member. The States and units affected by the reapportionment plan and the current and proposed member representation per unit are as follows: State/unit Current representation Proposed representation 1. Nebraska 6 7 2. Importer 8 9 The 2008 nomination and appointment process was in progress while the Board was developing its recommendations. Thus, the Board reapportionment as proposed by this rulemaking would be effective, if adopted, with appointments that will be effective early in the year 2009. A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate to facilitate the adjustment of the representation on the Board, which is required by the Order at least every 3 years, and not more than every 2 years. To permit timely execution of the annual nomination and appointment process, publication of a subsequent final rule must occur as soon as practical. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260 Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 1260 be amended as follows: PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911. 2. In § 1260.141, paragraph

(a)and the table immediately following it, are revised to read as follows: § 1260.141 Membership of Board.

(a)Beginning with the 2008 Board nominations and the associated appointments effective early in the year 2009, the United States shall be divided into 39 geographical units and 1 unit representing importers, and the number of Board members from each unit shall be as follows: Cattle and Calves 1 State/unit (1,000 Head) Directors 1. Alabama 1,307 1 2. Arizona 930 1 3. Arkansas 1,773 2 4. California 5,450 5 5. Colorado 2,617 3 6. Florida 1,707 2 7. Idaho 2,117 2 8. Illinois 1,347 1 9. Indiana 883 1 10. Iowa 3,783 4 11. Kansas 6,550 7 12. Kentucky 2,363 2 13. Louisiana 847 1 14. Michigan 1,030 1 15. Minnesota 2,390 2 16. Mississippi 1,013 1 17. Missouri 4,450 4 18. Montana 2,383 2 19. Nebraska 6,500 7 20. Nevada 500 1 21. New Mexico 1,543 2 22. New York 1,410 1 23. North Carolina 860 1 24. North Dakota 1,760 2 25. Ohio 1,280 1 26. Oklahoma 5,350 5 27. Oregon 1,397 1 28. Pennsylvania 1,603 2 29. South Dakota 3,717 4 30. Tennessee 2,240 2 31. Texas 13,933 14 32. Utah 830 1 33. Virginia 1,640 2 34. Wisconsin 3,383 3 35. Wyoming 1,403 1 36. Northwest 1 Alaska 15 Hawaii 158 Washington 1,107 Total 1,280 37. Northeast 1 Connecticut 54 Delaware 23 Maine 90 Massachusetts 46 New Hampshire 38 New Jersey 41 Rhode Island 5 Vermont 272 Total 569 38. Mid-Atlantic 1 Maryland 228 West Virginia 412 Total 640 39. Southeast 2 Georgia 1,187 South Carolina 415 Total 1,602 40. Importer 2 9 1 2005, 2006, and 2007 average of January 1 cattle inventory data. 2 2004, 2005, and 2006 average of annual import data. Dated: February 1, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2194 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29036; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Point Roberts, WA (Abbotsford, BC) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Point Roberts, WA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to support flight operations at Abbotsford Airport, BC. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at the request of the Canadian Government. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone

(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-29036; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone

(425)917-6728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-29036 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-29036 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-13”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Point Roberts, WA (Abbotsford, BC). Controlled airspace is necessary to allow east bound departures to transition into the en route environment for the safety and management of IFR operations at Abbotsford Airport, BC. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle II, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would allow for the safety of departing aircraft transitioning to the en route environment at Abbotsford Airport, BC, through United States airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ANM WA E5 Point Roberts, WA (Abbotsford, BC) [New] Abbotsford Airport, BC, Canada (Lat. 49°01′31″ N., long. 122°21′48″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 122°15′00″ W.; thence east along the Canadian U.S. Border to lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 121°20′15″ W.; thence south to lat. 48°51′40″ N., long. 121°20′15″ W.; thence west to lat. 48°51′40″ N., long. 122°15′00″ W.; thence back to the point of origination. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E8-2221 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0145] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Colorado River, Parker, AZ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone in the Lake Moolvalya region on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona for the Bluewater Resort and Casino ‘Spring Classic’ Boat Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0145 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online:* *http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at

(619)278-7233. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0145), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0145) in the box under “Search” and click “Go”. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Southern California Speedboat Club is sponsoring the Bluewater Resort and Casino ‘Spring Classic' Boat Race, which is held on the Lake Moolvalya region on the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway. This event involves powerboats racing along a circular track. The size of the boats varies from twelve

(12)to (twenty-two) 22 feet. Approximately eighty-five

(85)boats will participate in this event. The sponsor will provide two

(2)water rescue and two

(2)patrol vessels to patrol this event. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish one

(1)safety zone that will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 11, 2008 through April 13, 2008. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators, and participants of the event and to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The limits of this temporary safety are the portion of the Colorado River from Headgate Dam to 0.5 miles north of Bluewater Marina, Parker, Arizona. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(1)This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 11, 2008 through April 13, 2008.

(2)This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only twelve

(12)hours per day for a period of three

(3)days. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before the effective period, we would publish local notice to mariners

(LNM)before the safety zone is enforced. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Kristen Beer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at

(619)278-7233. 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed 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

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat, 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 2. Add a new temporary § 165.T11-001 to read as follows: § 165.T11-001 Safety Zone; Lake Moolvalya, Colorado River, Parker, AZ.

(a)*Location.* The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for the Bluewater Resort and Casino ‘Spring Classic' Boat Race. The limits of this temporary safety zone is the portion of the Colorado River from Headgate Dam to 0.5 miles north of Bluewater Marina, Parker, Arizona.

(b)*Effective Period.* This section is effective from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 11, 2008 through April 13, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.* Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative. Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Dated: January 22, 2008. C.V. Strangfeld, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Diego. [FR Doc. E8-2212 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0140] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Colorado River, Parker, AZ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone within the Lake Moolvalya region on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona for the Bluewater Resort and Casino American Powerboat Association

(APBA)National Tour/Regional Championship. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of the race, and general users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designation representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0140 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online:* *http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call MST3 Kristen Beer, USCG, c/o U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, at

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0140), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0140) in the box under “Search” and click “Go”. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose RPM Racing Enterprises is sponsoring the Bluewater Resort and Casino APBA National Tour/Regional Championship, which is held on the Lake Moolvalya region on the Colorado River in Parker, AZ. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway. This event involves powerboats racing along a circular track. The size of the boats varies from eight to 15 feet. Approximately 130 to 150 boats will participate in this event. The sponsor has provided two water rescue and two patrol vessels to patrol this event. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed temporary safety zone would be comprised of the following area: The portion of the navigable waterway of Lake Moolvalya, from the north part of Headgate Dame to 0.5 nautical headed north of Bluewater Marina, Parker, AZ. The Coast Guard proposes to establish one safety zone that will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from May 2, 2008 through May 4, 2008. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this safety zone. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Section 165.23 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, prohibits any unauthorized person or vessel from entering or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this section will be subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(1)This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 2, 2008 through May 4, 2008.

(2)This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only 12 hours per day for a period of three days. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before the effective period, we would publish local notice to mariners

(LNM)before the safety zone is enforced. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact MST3 Kristen Beer, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at

(619)278-7233. 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. 2. A new temporary § 165.T11-261 is added to read as follows: § 165.T11-261 Safety Zone; Lake Moolvalya, Colorado River, Parker, AZ.

(a)*Location.* The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the Bluewater Resort and Casino APBA National Tour/Regional Championship. The limits of this proposed temporary safety zone would include that portion of the Colorado River from Headgate Dam to 0.5 miles north of Bluewater Marina, Parker, AZ.

(b)*Effective Period.* This section is effective from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from May 2, 2008 through May 4, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.* Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, San Diego or his designated on-scene representative. Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Dated: January 21, 2008. C.V. Strangfeld, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego. [FR Doc. E8-2205 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069; A-1-FRL-8526-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007 that are available in the EPA Air Quality System database, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If this proposed determination is made final, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069 by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069,” 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069. 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” system, 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, 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)918-1664, fax number

(617)918-0664, e-mail *Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Effect of This Action? III. What Is the Background for This Action? IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and monitoring data that continue to show attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007 that are available in the EPA Air Quality System

(AQS)database, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. II. What Is the Effect of This Action? If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR Section 51.918), the requirements for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate ozone nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans

(SIPs)related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. This proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3), because we would not yet have an approved maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor a determination that the area has met the other requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status of the area would remain moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the **Federal Register** , that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone standard, the basis for the suspension of these requirements would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements. III. What Is the Background for This Action? On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2001-2003) of air quality data. Portions of Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham, and Strafford Counties in New Hampshire were designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area (specifically, the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire area). The rest of New Hampshire was designated as attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (See 40 CFR 81.330.) More recent air quality data, however, indicate that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire area is now attaining the 8-hour ozone standard. IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data? The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System

(AQS)database, for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire ozone nonattainment area, from 2002 through the present time. On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that this area attained the 8-hour ozone standard at the end of the 2004 ozone season, based on certified 2002-2004 ozone data, and continued to attain the standard through and inclusive of the 2004-2006 ozone seasons. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007, that are available in AQS, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million

(ppm)(i.e., 0.084 ppm, based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I). This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (84 parts per billion (ppb)) at each monitor within the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 50. Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire nonattainment area monitors for the years 2004-2007. Table 2 shows the ozone design values for these same monitors based on the following 3-year periods: 2002-2004; 2003-2005; 2004-2006; and 2005-2007. Table 1.—Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations (Parts Per Million, PPM) in the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire Area Location AQS site ID 2004 2005 2006 2007 Manchester 330110020 0.071 0.071 0.068 0.074 Nashua 330111011 0.080 0.082 0.073 0.081 Portsmouth 330150014 0.076 0.075 0.073 0.078 Rye 330150016 0.074 0.075 0.076 0.086 Table 2.—Ozone Design Values

(PPM)for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire Area Location AQS site ID 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 Manchester 330110020 0.075 0.070 0.070 0.071 Nashua 330111011 0.084 0.080 0.078 0.078 Portsmouth 330150014 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.075 Rye 330150016 0.078 0.073 0.075 0.079 EPA's review of these data indicate that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire ozone nonattainment area has met and continues to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this **Federal Register** . V. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to determine that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and continues to attain the standard based on data through the 2007 ozone season. As provided in 40 CFR Section 51.918, if EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the requirements for New Hampshire to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9), and any other planning SIP related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for this area, for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. 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 proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed 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 proposes to determine that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards. 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 because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air Act. This proposed 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.* ) Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a proposed determination of attainment based on air quality data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-income communities. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Dated: January 30, 2008. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E8-2251 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R6-ES-2008-0023; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; initiation of status review, and solicitation of new information. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the opening of a public comment period regarding the status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout ( *Oncorhynchus clarki utah* ) throughout its range in the United States. The 12-month finding for this subspecies, published in the **Federal Register** on October 9, 2001, has been withdrawn by the Service (Stansell Memorandum, August 24, 2007) due to the subsequent development of a formal opinion (Department of the Interior, March 16, 2007) regarding the legal interpretation of the term “significant portion of the range” of a species. The status review will include analysis of whether any significant portion of the range of the Bonneville cutthroat trout warrants listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Through this action, we encourage all interested parties to provide us information regarding the status of, and any potential threats to, the Bonneville cutthroat trout throughout its range, or any significant portion of its range. DATES: To be fully considered for the 12-month finding, comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2008-0023; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above address, or phone

(801)975-3330, ext. 126. Additional information is available at *http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/fish/bct/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties. We are opening a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout throughout its range, including:

(1)Information regarding the species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;

(2)Information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a species' listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), which are:

(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;

(b)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c)Disease or predation;

(d)Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

(e)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

(3)Information on management programs for the conservation of the Bonneville cutthroat trout. Please note that comments merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, because section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a new 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information-on *http://www.regulations.gov.* While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Utah Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119, telephone

(801)975-3330. Background Section 1533(b)(3)(A) and

(B)of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that, for any petition to revise the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition, the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In addition, that within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found to present substantial information indicting that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make a finding on whether the petitioned action is:

(a)not warranted,

(b)warranted, or

(c)warranted but precluded by other pending proposals. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly in the **Federal Register** . This notice is to initiate a 12-month finding. On October 9, 2001, we announced our 12-month finding (66 FR 51362) in which we found that, after reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, listing the Bonneville cutthroat trout was not warranted. We were sued by the Center for Biological Diversity on February 17, 2005 on the merits of the 12-month finding. On March 7, 2007, the District Court of Colorado dismissed the lawsuit after determining that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the not warranted finding was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Plaintiffs appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, due to subsequent development of a formal opinion (Department of the Interior, March 16, 2007) regarding the legal interpretation of the term “significant portion of the range” of a species, we withdrew our finding (Stansell Memorandum, August 24, 2007). The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed and the case was closed on May 14, 2007. The new status review will include an analysis of whether any significant portion of the range of the Bonneville cutthroat trout warrants listing as threatened or endangered under the Act. At this time, we are soliciting new information on the status and potential threats to the Bonneville cutthroat trout. Information submitted in response to our 2001 12-month finding will be considered and need not be resubmitted. We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received as a result of this notice. For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, please refer to our previous 12-month finding published in the **Federal Register** on October 9, 2001 (66 FR 51362). We request any new information concerning the status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout. If you submit information, support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. We specifically request information regarding data from any systematic surveys, as well as any studies or analysis of data regarding population size or trends; biology or ecology of the species; effects of current land management on population distribution and abundance; current condition of habitat; and conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species. Additionally, we specifically request information on the current distribution of populations, and threats to the subspecies in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act). Author The primary authors of this document are staff of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office—Ecological Services. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: February 1, 2008. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-2222 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0018; 92210-1117-0000-B4] RIN 1018-AV25 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Devils River Minnow (Dionda diaboli) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, amended required determinations, and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow ( *Dionda diaboli* ) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis

(DEA)of the proposed critical habitat designation and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are also providing notice of a public hearing on the proposal. The DEA estimates baseline costs associated with conservation activities for the Devils River minnow to be approximately $507,000 in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period in areas we proposed as critical habitat. Incremental impacts are estimated to be $57,100 (undiscounted dollars) over a 20-year period. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted on this rulemaking do not need to be resubmitted, as they will be incorporated into the public record and fully considered when preparing our final determination. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 10, 2008. We will hold one public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designation and the DEA on February 27, 2008. See Public Hearing section under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details. ADDRESSES: *Written Comments:* You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AV25; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited section below for more information). *Public Hearing:* We will hold a public hearing and information session at the following location: Del Rio, TX: Kennedy Room, Del Rio Civic Center, 1915 Veterans Boulevard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512/490-0057, extension 248; facsimile 512/490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing We will hold a public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designation and the DEA on February 27, 2008 in Del Rio, Texas. An information session will be held from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and will precede the hearing. The public hearing will run from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. See the Public Hearing section under ADDRESSES for the specific location of the public hearing. Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request. Public Comments We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period, as well as oral or written comments at the scheduled public hearing on our proposed critical habitat designation for the Devils River minnow ( *Dionda diaboli* ) published in the **Federal Register** on July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41679), the DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1)The reasons habitat should or should not be designated as critical habitat under section 4 of the Act, specifically the benefits of excluding or the benefits of including any particular area as critical habitat.

(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of Devils River minnow habitat, • What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.

(3)Information on the status of the Devils River minnow in Sycamore Creek and Las Moras Creek watersheds and information that indicates whether or not these areas should be considered essential to the conservation of the species and why.

(4)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(5)Information on whether the DEA identifies all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits that we have overlooked.

(6)Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes likely if we designate critical habitat.

(7)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities and information about the benefits of including or excluding any areas that exhibit those impacts.

(8)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments. If you submitted comments or information during the initial comment period from July 31, 2007, to October 1, 2007, on the proposed rule (72 FR 41679), they need not be resubmitted. They will be fully considered in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat for the Devils River minnow will take into consideration all written comments we receive, oral or written comments we receive at the public hearing, and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential or are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule, the associated DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations section by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country, and postal

(zip)code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments or mailed comments that are not received or postmarked, respectively, by the date specified in the DATES section. We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on * http:// www.regulations.gov * . If you provide personal identifying information in addition to the required items specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this notice, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the original proposed rule and the DEA by mail from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or by visiting our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/austintexas/.* Background It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to designation of critical habitat in this notice. For more information on Devils River minnow, refer to the final listing rule published in the **Federal Register** on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56596), the original proposed critical habitat designation published on July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41679), or the 2005 Devils River Minnow Recovery Plan. All of these documents and others are available online at *http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/* . The Devils River minnow was listed as threatened on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56596). Critical habitat was not designated for this species at the time of listing (64 FR 56606). On October 5, 2005, the Forest Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, and Save Our Springs Alliance filed suit against the Service for failure to designate critical habitat for this species ( *Forest Guardians* v. *Hall* , 2005). On June 28, 2006, a settlement was reached that requires the Service to re-evaluate our original determination. The settlement stipulated that, if prudent, a proposed rule would be submitted to the **Federal Register** for publication on or before July 31, 2007, and a final rule by July 31, 2008. On July 31, 2007, we published a proposed rule (72 FR 41679) to designate critical habitat for Devils River minnow. We proposed three units as critical habitat, including approximately 73.5 total stream kilometers

(km)(45.7 stream miles (mi)). The proposed critical habitat is located along three Texas streams, two in Val Verde County (Devils River and San Felipe Creek) and one in Kinney County (Pinto Creek). Further, in the proposed rule, we identified two additional areas, Sycamore Creek and Las Moras Creek, which we are considering including in the final critical habitat designation. We requested public comment and information on whether these areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Under section 4(b)(2), we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as critical habitat, unless failure to designate that specific area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. In the July 31, 2007, critical habitat proposed rule (72 FR 41679), we address a number of general issues that are relevant to exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, we have prepared a DEA analyzing the potential impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for public review and comment. Based on public comment on this document and the proposed designation, additional areas may be excluded from final critical habitat by the Secretary under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This is provided for in the Act and in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have prepared a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation based on our July 31, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 41679) to designate critical habitat for the Devils River minnow. In the July 31, 2007, critical habitat proposal, we discussed the uncertainty regarding the inclusion of two areas currently unoccupied by the species. Sycamore Creek and Las Moras Creek were historically occupied by Devils River minnow, but the species has not been collected in either location since 1989 and 1955, respectively. We requested public input during the initial comment period for information to assist our determination to include or not include these areas in the critical habitat designation. We received multiple comments from peer reviewers and the public encouraging inclusion of these areas to further the conservation of the species. In response to these comments, the DEA further evaluates the potential economic costs of designating these two additional areas. The intent of the DEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Devils River minnow; some of these costs are coextensive with listing and recovery and will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The DEA also identifies the incremental costs associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. Incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow. The DEA describes and quantifies the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Devils River minnow in relation to the threats identified by the Service. That is, analyzed impacts are due to conservation measures for the Devils River minnow that address one or more of the threats to the species identified by the Service. Based on the proposed rule, the DEA analyzed potential costs of measures taken to address threats related to poor water quality caused by pollution, groundwater and surface water extraction, nonnative species, and stream channel alteration. The DEA estimates total pre-designation baseline impacts (8-year total from 1999 to 2007) for all 3 proposed units to be $342,000 (undiscounted dollars), which is equivalent to a present value of $380,000, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $392,000, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Post-designation baseline impacts (2008 to 2027) for all 3 proposed units are estimated to be $507,000 (undiscounted dollars) over the next 20 years, which is equivalent to a present value of $391,000, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $290,000, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The post-designation incremental impacts (2008 to 2027) for all 3 proposed units are estimated to be $57,100 (undiscounted dollars), which is equivalent to a present value of $42,600, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $30,300, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Concerning the two additional areas we considered for inclusion in the designation of critical habitat (Sycamore Creek and Las Moras Creek), the DEA found no costs associated with Devils River minnow conservation or potential inclusion as critical habitat in either area. There were no conservation actions or projects involving consultation under section 7 of the Act related to the species in these areas, either baseline or future projects, with quantifiable costs. Therefore, the estimated economic costs reported above and elsewhere in this document refer to the total costs of the three units (Devils River, San Felipe Creek, and Pinto Creek) we actually proposed for designation. The DEA considers the potential economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the Devils River minnow, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, as well as costs attributable to the designation of critical habitat. The DEA further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the species in areas containg features essential to the conservation of the species. The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the DEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since we listed the Devils River minnow as threatened on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56596), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat. Because the DEA considers the potential economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the Devils River minnow, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act and those attributable to the designation of critical habitat, the DEA may have overestimated the potential economic impacts of the critical habitat designation. As stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on this DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Required Determinations—Amended In our July 31, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 41679), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document we affirm the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the information within the DEA, we revise our required determinations concerning E.O. 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and E.O. 12630 (Takings). Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with E.O. 12866, we evaluate four parameters in determining whether a rule is significant. If any one of the following four parameters are met, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)will designate that rule as significant under E.O. 12866:

(a)The rule would have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;

(b)The rule would create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions;

(c)The rule would materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients; or

(d)The rule would raise novel legal or policy issues. If OMB requests to informally review a rule designating critical habitat for a species, we consider that rule to raise novel legal and policy issues. Because no other Federal agencies designate critical habitat, the designation of critical habitat will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. We use the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation to evaluate the potential effects related to the other parameters of E.O. 12866 and to make a determination as to whether the regulation may be significant under parameter

(a)or

(c)listed above. Based on the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation, we have determined that the designation of critical habitat for Devils River minnow will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Based on previous critical habitat designations and the economic analysis, we believe this rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. OMB has requested to informally review this rule, and thus this action may raise novel legal or policy issues. In accordance with the provisions of E.O. 12866, this rule is considered significant. Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies issuing regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Because the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when issuing a designation of critical habitat. In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our DEA of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed Devils River minnow critical habitat designation would affect a substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial development, agriculture, oil and gas production). We apply the “substantial number” test individually to each industry to determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the Devils River minnow. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities. Appendix B of the DEA examined the potential for Devils River minnow conservation efforts to affect small entities. The analysis was based on the estimated impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. Based on the analysis, the potential for economic impacts of the designation on small entities are expected to be borne primarily by the City of Del Rio and other miscellaneous small entities. The identities of these small entities are not known at this time but are expected to include local developers and private landowners that may represent third parties in section 7 consultations on the Devils River minnow in the future. The City of Del Rio and other miscellaneous small entities are expected to incur, at most, combined annualized administrative costs related to consultations for adverse modification of approximately $3,000, assuming a 3 percent discount rate. This estimated $3,000 in combined annual administrative costs is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities, including the City of Del Rio. In addition, because the annualized post-designation incremental impacts expected for the City of Del Rio and other miscellaneous small entities are relatively small, no future indirect impacts associated with post-designation incremental impacts are expected for the small businesses and entities included in this analysis. In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we certify that the designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities; therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for the Devils River minnow is not considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The DEA's Appendix B finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, energy-related impacts associated with Devils River minnow conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

(a)This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except

(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or

(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

(b)We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The proposed designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Executive Order 12630—Takings In accordance with E.O. 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for Devils River minnow. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. We conclude that this designation of critical habitat for Devils River minnow does not pose significant takings implications. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or by contacting the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Author(s) The primary authors of this rulemaking are staff of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, Texas. Authority 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. Dated: January 30, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-2225 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 26 Thursday, February 7, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No.: AMS-DA-08-0005; DA-08-01] Notice of Request for New Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces that the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)is requesting approval from the Office of Management of Budget of a new information collection—Application for Export Certification—under the Dairy program. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments can be sent to Reginald Pasteur, Dairy Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 2734-S; Washington, DC 20250-0230. E-mail address: *Reginald.pasteur@usda.gov* or fax

(202)720-2643. Comments may also be electronically submitted at the Federal eRulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference docket number DA-08-01 and note the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection at the above address between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., est, Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Reginald Pasteur, Dairy Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA

(202)690-3571, e-mail address: *reginald.pasteur@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), to provide voluntary Federal dairy grading and inspection services to facilitate the orderly marketing of dairy products and to enable consumers to obtain the quality of dairy products they desire. One means of facilitating international marketing of domestically produced dairy products is through the issuance of export certificates. Many importing countries require shipment specific certificates attesting to the acceptability of products and/or the manufacturing operations that produce these products. Some countries accept generic export certificates issued by the Dairy Grading Branch. Other countries have accepted certificates issued by the Dairy Grading Branch that include country specific information. The Dairy Grading Branch coordinates the content of these certificates with other Department of Agriculture

(USDA)and Federal agencies when the statements made in these certificates are based on responsibilities of those agencies. The manufacturing operations that produce products eligible for export certification include those operations participating in the USDA approved plant program administered by the Dairy Grading Branch (7 CFR part 58) and operations identified by the Food and Drug Administration. The AMA provides for the collection of reasonable fees from users of the services provided by the Dairy Grading Branch. Manufacturers and exporters requesting certificates are charged fees commensurate with costs associated with this service. In order to prepare an export certificate, it is necessary that the manufacturer or exporter provide shipment specific information. This is accomplished by completing a worksheet developed by the Dairy Grading Branch then mailing or faxing this completed worksheet to the Washington, DC office. In some instances a Certificate of Conformance prepared by the manufacturer or exporter must also be completed and provided to the office before an export certificate can be prepared. The information collection requirements in this request are needed in order for the Dairy Grading Branch to issue export certificates. The Export Certification Program supports the USDA, AMS mission of facilitating the marketing of U.S. agricultural products. *Title:* Applications for Export Certification. *OMB Number:* 0581-New. *Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from date of OMB approval. *Type of Request:* New Information Collection. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.30 hours per response. *Respondents:* Food product manufacturing facilities, export brokers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 125 respondents (100 manufacturers, 25 export brokers). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 4,250 responses per year. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 34. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,275 Hours. *Comments are invited on:*

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

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: February 1, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2192 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-TM-07-0152; TM-08-01] Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Farmers' Market Promotion Program

(FMPP)AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)announces funding of approximately $1 million in competitive grant funds for fiscal year

(FY)2008 to increase domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by expanding direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities. Examples of direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities include new farmers' markets, roadside stands, community supported agriculture programs, and other direct producer-to-consumer infrastructures. AMS hereby requests proposals from eligible entities from the following categories:

(1)Agricultural cooperatives,

(2)local governments,

(3)nonprofit corporations,

(4)public benefit corporations,

(5)economic development corporations,

(6)regional farmers' market authorities, and

(7)tribal governments. The maximum award per grant is $75,000. No matching funds are required. AMS strongly recommends that each applicant visit the AMS Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/FMPP* to review a copy of the FMPP Guidelines and application package preparation information to assist in preparing the proposal narrative and application package. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under 0581-0235. DATES: Applications should be received at the address below and must be postmarked not later than March 24, 2008. Applications bearing a postmark after the deadline will not be considered. ADDRESSES: Submit proposals and other required materials to Mr. Errol Bragg, Associate Deputy Administrator, Marketing Services Branch, Transportation and Marketing Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, Room 2646-South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0269, phone 202/720-8317. For hard-copy (paper) submissions all forms, narrative, letters of support, and other required materials must be forwarded in one application package. AMS will not accept application packages by e-mail; electronic applications will be accepted only if submitted via *http://www.Grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Errol Bragg, Associate Deputy Administrator, Marketing Services Branch, Transportation and Marketing Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), on 202/720-8317, fax 202/690-0031, or by e-mail *USDAFMPP@usda.gov.* State that your request for information refers to Docket No. TM-08-01. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This solicitation is issued pursuant to Section 6 of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 3001-3006) as amended by Section 10605 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) (the Acts) authorizing the establishment of the Farmers' Market Promotion Program (7 U.S.C. 3005)(FMPP). The amended act states that the purposes of the FMPP are “(A) to increase domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by improving and expanding, or assisting in the improvement and expansion of, domestic farmers' markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, and other direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities; and

(B)to develop, or aid in the development of, new farmers' markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, and other direct producer-to-consumer infrastructure.” Detailed program guidelines may be obtained at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/FMPP* or from the contact listed above. Further, in accordance with the Secretary's Statement of Policy (36 FR 13804), it is found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to engage in further public participation under 5 U.S.C 553 because the applications for the FMPP need to be made available as soon as possible as the program season approaches. Background AMS will grant awards for projects that continue developing, promoting, and expanding direct marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers. Eligible FMPP proposals should support marketing entities where agricultural farmers or vendors sell their own products directly to consumers, and the sales of these farm products should represent the core business of the entity. All eligible entities shall be domestic entities, i.e., those owned, operated, and located within one or more of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia only. Entities located within U.S. territories are not eligible. Additionally, under this program eligible entities must apply for FMPP funds on behalf of direct marketing operators that include two or more agricultural farmers/vendors that produce and sell their own products through a common distribution channel. For example, a sole proprietor of a roadside farm market would not be eligible for this program. Individual agricultural producers, including farmers and farmers' market vendors, roadside stand operators, community supported agriculture participants, and other individual direct marketers are not eligible for FMPP funds. FMPP funds exclude existing routine operational expenses such as management salaries or other's salaries associated with normal operation of existing farmers markets/marketing entities, utility bills, and insurance premiums. FMPP grant funds must be applied to the specific programs and objectives identified in the application. Proprietary projects and projects that benefit one agricultural producer or individual will not be considered. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the FMPP information collection were previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0235. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act

(GPEA)that requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. How to Submit Proposals and Applications Each applicant must follow the application preparation and submission instructions provided within the FMPP Guidelines at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/FMPP.* Electronic forms, proposals, letters of support, or any other application materials emailed directly to AMS-FMPP or USDA-AMS staff will not be accepted. Following are the options available for submitting proposals and applications to AMS: *Paper Submissions* —For paper submissions an original and one copy of the proposal, required forms, narrative, letters of support, and all required materials *must be submitted in one package,* *preferably via express mail.* *Electronic Submissions via Grants.gov* —Applicants may apply electronically for grants through *Grants.gov* at *http://www.Grants.gov* (insert 10.168 in grant search) and are strongly encouraged to initiate the electronic submission process at least two weeks prior to application deadline. Grants.gov applicants who submit their FMPP proposals via the Federal grants Web site are not required to submit any paper documents to FMPP. FMPP is listed in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” under number 10.168 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all federally assisted programs. Dated: February 1, 2008. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2195 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0205; FV-06-317] United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups. Specifically, AMS is revising the “Application of Tolerances” section in the cantaloup standards. Additionally, AMS is removing the “Unclassified” category from the standards. These changes will bring the standards for cantaloups in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving the usefulness of the standards in serving the industry. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch,

(202)720-2185. The revised United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups are available by accessing the Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised June 30, 1968. Background Prior to undertaking detailed work to develop a proposed revision to the standards, AMS published a notice on December 28, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 78128) soliciting comments on possible revisions of the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups. One supporting comment was received from a national trade association representing independent wholesale receivers. The commenter stated their members were in favor of the proposed revisions to the “Application of Tolerances” section. Based on this supportive comment, a second notice was published on July 25, 2007, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 40825) proposing to revise the standards to allow changes to section 51.480, which permitted applying tolerances to: either samples of the entire contents of melons in cartons or to samples consisting of at least twenty five melons for cantaloups packed in bulk bins or other packaging. Specifically within the section, “The contents of individual packages * * *” will be modified to “Samples * * *” and “(a) A package may contain * * *” will be modified to “(a) Samples may contain * * *”. The notice also proposed eliminating the “Unclassified” category. No additional comments were received. Based on the one initial comment received and information gathered, AMS is revising the grade standards for cantaloups to include these revisions. The official grades of cantaloups covered by these standards are determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.62). The revised United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups will become effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: February 1, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2197 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2007-0036; FV-06-318] United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples. Specifically, AMS is replacing Tables I and II in the tolerances section with numerical tolerances and numerical application of tolerances. Decay tolerances will also be revised. This change will bring the standards for pineapples in line with current marketing practices, thereby, improving the usefulness of the standards in serving the industry. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch;

(202)720-2185. The revised United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples is available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background Prior to undertaking detailed work to develop a proposed revision to the standards, AMS published a notice on September 21, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 55160), soliciting comments on a possible revision of the United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples. Based on comments received and information gathered, a second notice was published on August 15, 2007, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 45724), proposing to revise the standards by replacing Tables I and II in the tolerances section with numerical tolerances and numerical application of tolerances. Decay tolerances were also proposed for revision. In response to this notice AMS received two supporting comments and one opposing comment. The comments are available by accessing the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. The two supporting comments stated that the revision would facilitate the marketing of pineapples and make the standards for pineapples more uniform. The opposing commentor did not feel the revision was necessary at this time due to more pressing issues, which were not elaborated on by the commentor. Based on comments received and information gathered, AMS is revising the pineapple standards by replacing Tables I and II in the tolerances section with numerical tolerances and numerical application of tolerances, as well as revising the decay tolerances. The official grade of a lot of pineapples covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). The United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: February 1, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2196 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0132] Notice of Request for Revision and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Domestic Quarantine Regulations AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Revision and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision and extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations to prevent the interstate spread of plant diseases within the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0132* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0132, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0132. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the domestic quarantine regulations, contact Dr. Osama El Lissy, Director, Emergency Management, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-8247. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Domestic Quarantine Regulations. *OMB Number:* 0579-0088. *Type of Request:* Revision and extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) (PPA), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, means of conveyance, or other article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent a plant pest or noxious weed from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA. Regulations governing the interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles are contained in 7 CFR part 301, “Domestic Quarantine Notices.” These regulations prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of certain articles from infested areas to noninfested areas to prevent the spread of plant pests such as the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, imported fire ant, Mexican fruit fly, and the West Indian fruit fly. For example, if an area of the United States has been placed under quarantine because of a fruit fly infestation, then certain plants and plant products that may present a risk of spreading the fruit fly may be moved interstate from the infested area only under certain conditions (e.g., after treatment or inspection). In this way, we prevent the fruit flies from being spread to noninfested areas of the United States via the movement of the plants and plant products. Administering these regulations requires APHIS to collect information from a variety of individuals who are involved in growing, packing, handling, and transporting plants and plant products. The information we collect serves as the supporting documentation required for the issuance of forms and documents that authorize the movement of regulated plants and plant products and is vital to help prevent the spread of injurious plant pests within the United States. Collecting this information requires us to use a number of forms and documents, including certificates, limited permits, transit permits, and outdoor household article documents. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years. This notice includes a description of the information collection requirements currently approved by OMB under numbers 0579-0088 (Domestic Quarantine Regulations) and 0579-0238 (Mexican Fruit Fly; Interstate Movement of Regulated Articles). After OMB approves and combines the burden for both collections under one collection (number 0579-0088), the Department will retire number 0579-0238. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.0884403 hours per response. *Respondents:* State plant regulatory officials, State cooperators, and individuals involved in growing, packing, handling, and transporting plants and plant products. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 195,085. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 6.15183. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 1,203,636. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 106,450 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) 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. Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of January 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2260 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0007] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Pork and Poultry Products From Mexico Transiting the United States AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for pork and poultry products from Mexico transiting the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0007* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0007, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0007. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on pork and poultry products from Mexico transiting the United States, contact Dr. Masoud Malik, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services-Products, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-8096. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Pork and Poultry Products from Mexico Transiting the United States. *OMB Number:* 0579-0145. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests. To fulfill this mission, APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The regulations are contained in title 9, chapter 1, subchapter D, parts 91 through 99, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations in 9 CFR 94.15 allow fresh (chilled or frozen) pork and pork products and poultry carcasses, parts, and products (except eggs and egg products) that are not eligible to enter into the United States to transit the United States from specified States in Mexico, via land ports, for export to another country. The regulations set out conditions for the transit movements that protect against the introduction of classical swine fever or exotic Newcastle disease into the United States. These conditions involve the use of several information collection activities, including the completion of an import permit application, the placement of serially numbered seals on product containers, and the forwarding of a pre-arrival notification to U.S. port personnel. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.920792079 hours per response. *Respondents:* Exporters in Mexico and full-time, salaried veterinarians employed by the national government of Mexico. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 22. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 13.7727. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 303. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 279 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) 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. Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of January 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2264 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0025] Notice of Availability of a Pest Risk Analysis for Importation of Blueberries From Guatemala Into the Continental United States AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have prepared a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of blueberries from Guatemala. Based on that analysis, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of blueberries from Guatemala. We are making the pest risk analysis available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0025* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0025, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0025. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the environmental assessment in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tony Román, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operation Staff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph

(b)of that section. These measures are: • The fruits or vegetables are subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States and comply with all applicable provisions of § 319.56-3; • The fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin; • The fruits or vegetables are treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; • The fruits or vegetables are inspected in the country of origin by an inspector or an official of the national plant protection organization of the exporting country, and have been found free of one or more specific quarantine pests identified by the risk analysis as likely to follow the import pathway; and/or • The fruits or vegetables are a commercial consignment. APHIS received a request from the Government of Guatemala to allow the importation of blueberries from Guatemala into the continental United States. We have completed a pest risk assessment to identify pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation into the United States and, based on that pest risk assessment, have prepared a risk management analysis to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the commodity to mitigate the pest risk. We have concluded that blueberries can be safely imported into the continental United States from Guatemala using one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in § 319.56-4(b). Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk analysis for public review and comment. The pest risk analysis may be viewed on the *Regulations.gov* Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing *Regulations.gov* and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the pest risk analysis by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the subject of the pest risk analysis when requesting copies. After reviewing the comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of blueberries from Guatemala in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will begin issuing permits for importation of blueberries from Guatemala into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the risk management analysis. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of January 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2263 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection: Volunteer Programs AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with the Standards for Approval of Volunteer Programs. DATES: We will consider comment received by April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include volume, date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* Send comments to: *Mondina.Jolley@wdc.usdc.gov* . *Fax:*

(202)401-0515. *Mail:* Ms. C. Mondina Jolley, Student Employment Program Manager, USDA, FSA, Human Resources Division, Domestic Operations Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0596. Comments also should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. C. Mondina Jolley, Student Employment Program Manager, phone:

(202)401-0515. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Volunteer Programs. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0232. *Expiration Date for Approval:* August 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection. *Abstract:* The Volunteer Program Personnel Management Notice is issued to allow the FSA to enter into volunteer agreements with students, individuals, groups or organizations who sponsor individual's services without compensation, and who perform those services in furtherance of the programs of the Agency. This information collection allows FSA to effectively recruit, train, and accept volunteers to carry out programs supported by the USDA Department. The type of respondents are mainly students; individuals; and sponsored volunteer program service Agreements. The supporting documents with the forms in this information collection are required to allow the Agency to document the use (as required by the Office of Personnel Management letter dated April 18, 1996, i.e., to inform volunteers of the nature of their appointment with respect to service credit for leave or other employees benefits and record time and attendance) of individuals providing voluntary service but are not Federal employees except for the purpose of Chapter 81 of Title 5, U.S.C. (relating to Worker Compensation Program), and Sections 2671 through 2680 of Title 28 U.S.C. relating to tort claims. The forms are furnished to selected volunteers to secure and record information regarding the agreement and permit the volunteer to submit time and attendance information. *Estimate of Burden:* The recording keeping requirements in this clearance are normal business records and, therefore, have no burden. Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. The average travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent. *Estimated Total Number of respondents:* 80. *Average time to respond:* 25. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Total annual burden hours:* 30. Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, or mechanical, collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public records. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval. Signed in Washington, DC on February 1, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-2191 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Meeting of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2008. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2. The meeting agenda includes the following:

(1)Welcome/Introductions

(2)Environmental Education

(3)Updates on Respect the Resource

(4)General LBL Updates

(5)Board Discussion of Comments Received The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written comments must be received at Land Between The Lakes by February 21, 2008, in order for copies to be provided to the members at the meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested at a future meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 28, 2008, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., CST. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Kentucky Dam Village State Resort Park, Gilbertsville, Kentucky, and will be open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211, 270-924-2002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. Dated: January 22, 2008. William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes. [FR Doc. E8-2292 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 4-2008] Foreign-Trade Zone 38—Spartanburg County, SC, Request for Manufacturing Authority, Kittel Supplier USA, Inc., (Automotive Roof/Luggage Racks) An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, pursuant to Section 400.32(b)(1) of the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400), requesting authority on behalf of Kittel Supplier USA, Inc. (KSU), to assemble automotive roof/luggage racks under FTZ procedures within FTZ 38. It was formally filed on January 28, 2008. The KSU facility (25 employees) is located at 201 Commerce Court within the Highway 290 Commerce Park (Site 3) in Duncan, South Carolina. Under FTZ procedures, KSU would assemble up to 2.5 million automotive roof/luggage racks (HTSUS 8708.29) annually for the U.S. market and export. Foreign components that would be used in the assembly activity (up to 100% of total purchases) include: aluminum rails and support legs, plastic support legs, brackets, fasteners and rubber seals (duty rates: free—5.7%). FTZ procedures would exempt KSU from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in production for export. On domestic shipments transferred in-bond to U.S. automobile assembly plants with subzone status, no duties would be paid on the foreign components within the roof/luggage racks until the finished vehicles are subsequently entered for consumption, at which time the finished automobile duty rate (2.5%) could be applied to the foreign components. For the finished roof/luggage racks withdrawn directly by KSU for customs entry, the finished automotive part rate (2.5%) could be applied to the foreign inputs noted above. The application indicates that the company would also realize duty deferral and certain logistical/supply chain savings. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002. The closing period for receipt of comments is April 7, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 22, 2008. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above. For further information, contact Pierre Duy, examiner, at: *pierre_duy@ita.doc.gov* , or

(202)482-1378. Dated: January 28, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2283 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and

(4)of the regulations and be postmarked on or before February 27, 2008. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 2104. Docket Number: 07-072. Applicant: University of Washington, 1959 Pacific St., Room J405, Seattle, WA 98105. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 Twin. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in several different modes for single particle reconstruction and electron crystallography. The instrument will also be used as a teaching instrument to introduce graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and medical school faculty to the elements of protein structure determination by electron microscopy. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: January 18, 2008. Docket Number: 08-002. Applicant: University of Texas at Austin, 204 E. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78721. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study polymer matrix composites, biological systems, and novel carbon materials. The instrument will also be used in determining microscale structure, including under environmental conditions. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: January 18, 2008. Dated: February 1, 2008. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E8-2276 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-819] Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Tenth

(2005)Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the Tenth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 43616 (August 6, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We preliminarily found that Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L. (“Pallante”) and De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (“De Matteis”) received countervailable subsidies in this review, and Atar S.r.L. (“Atar”) did not receive any countervailable subsidies in this review and its rate is, consequently, zero. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have revised the net subsidy rate for De Matteis. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1174 and

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , we sent supplemental questionnaires to De Matteis and the Government of Italy (“GOI”) on August 1, 2007, and received responses on August 9, 2007, and a further clarification from De Matteis on September 10, 2007. Also, on October 25, 2007, the Department requested additional clarification on De Matteis' September 10 response. We received a response on November 5, 2007. We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. Case briefs were received from De Matteis and petitioners on September 19, 2007. A rebuttal brief was received from De Matteis on September 24, 2007. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this review because none was requested. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, dated August 4, 2004, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale

(ICEA)are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale

(ICEA)as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy” which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”). Although the *HTSUS* subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings *The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:*

(1)On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.

(2)On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU.

(3)On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.

(4)On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.225(b). * See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders * , 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003). Changes Since the Preliminary Results There has been one change since the *Preliminary Results* which affects De Matteis' rate. All issues raised in this review are addressed in the accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Tenth

(2005)Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (January 31, 2008), which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Decision Memo”). Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for Pallante and De Matteis. *See* Memorandum to the File, “Calculations for the Final Results for De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A.” (January 31, 2008) for the revised rate calculation for De Matteis. Pallente's rate did not change from the preliminary results and Atar had no countervailable subsidies. We did not calculate an individual rate for Agritalia because a review was not requested for Agritalia. Agritalia was only asked to participate because of the possible effect of subsidies it received on its suppliers who are included in this review. We have found that Agritalia did not receive any subsidies which affected any suppliers' rates. Listed below are the programs we examined in the review and our findings with respect to each of these programs. For a complete analysis of the programs found to be countervailable, and the basis for the Department's determination, see the Decision Memo. For the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, we find the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart shown below: Producer/Exporter Net subsidy rate (percent) De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A 1.83 Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L 2.02 Atar S.r.l 0.00 The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because the countervailing duty rate for Atar is zero, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries for Atar during the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c). For Pallante and De Matteis, the Department will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties at these net subsidy rates. The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of this review. For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, at the rates in effect at the time of entry. Agritalia has been reviewed previously and has its own exporter-specific rate of 2.92 percent. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties. Since the countervailable subsidy rate for Atar is zero, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for Atar on all shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: De Matteis Received Additional Subsidies Under Law 662/96 and Law 488/92. Comment 2: The Department Should Countervail Subsidies Received by Agritalia's Cross-Owned Companies. Comment 3: The Benefits Under Law 488/92 Received by De Matteis Should be Allocated Over Total Sales. [FR Doc. E8-2280 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-824] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from India. See *Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 44086 (August 7, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The review covers one respondent, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ). Based on our analysis of comments received on the *Preliminary Results,* we have made changes to our calculations for MTZ. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping margin for MTZ is listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATES: February 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao or Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1396 or

(202)482-5050, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from India. In accordance with 19 CFR. 351.309(c)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results.* On September 6, 2007, MTZ, the sole respondent in this administrative review, submitted a case brief relating to one issue: Adjustment of export price by the amount of countervailing duties imposed on PET film. No rebuttal brief was filed by any other interested party, and no hearing was requested. We have now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Period of Review The period of review

(POR)is July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Since the order was published, there has been one scope determination, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films, Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order. Imports of PET Film are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised by interested parties in the case briefs are listed in the Appendix to this notice, and addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on PET Film from India (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this administrative review in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.* The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received from MTZ, we have made changes to the margin calculation used in the *Preliminary Results,* taking into consideration the amount of countervailing duties imposed on subject merchandise to offset export subsidies, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C)of the Act. Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted- average margin (%) MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd 0.00 Duty Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For duty-assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value of sales for each importer during the period of review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PET Film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for MTZ will be the rate shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous proceeding conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 5.71 percent, which is the all others rate established in the less than fair value investigation (24.14 percent), adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Issues in the Decision Memorandum Appendix 1 1. Adjustment of Export Price

(EP)by the countervailing duties imposed on PET Film. [FR Doc. E8-2270 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-909] Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATES: February 7, 2008. SUMMARY: On January 23, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of certain steel nails from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination,* 73 FR 3928 (January 23, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). We are amending our preliminary determination to correct certain ministerial errors with respect to the antidumping duty margin calculation for Illinois Tool Works Inc. and Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Paslode”). The corrections to Paslode's margin also affect the margin applied to companies granted separate-rate status. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-9068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 23, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary determination that certain steel nails (“nails”) from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Preliminary Determination.* On January 22, 2008, Paslode and Petitioners 1 filed timely allegations of ministerial errors contained in the Department's *Preliminary Determination.* After reviewing the allegations, we have determined that the *Preliminary Determination* included significant ministerial errors. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we have made changes, as described below, to the *Preliminary Determination.* Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, May 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 1 Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Davis Wire Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire Division), Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company), Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc., and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, “Petitioners”). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Significant Ministerial Error Ministerial errors are defined in section 735(e) of the Act as “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” Section 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination* * *.” A significant ministerial error is defined as an error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in

(1)a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted- average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or

(2)a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(g). Ministerial Error Allegations From Paslode Rail Freight Paslode argues that the Department incorrectly applied the rail freight surrogate value in calculating the antidumping duty margin. Paslode notes in calculating the margin, the Department set the surrogate value for rails to 6.07 rupees per kilogram. *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, dated January 15, 2008 (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”) at 11. According to Paslode, the calculation was incorrectly reading the Indian freight rates provided on the Indian Railways website as if they were stated on a per quintal

(100)kilogram basis. However, Paslode asserts that the Indian freight rates provided on the Indian Railways website are stated on a per ton

(1000)kilogram basis. *See* Petitioners' December 3, 2007, Surrogate Value Submission at Exhibit 52. Therefore, Paslode argues that the correct freight rate is 0.607 rupees per kilogram. We agree that the Department incorrectly calculated the rail surrogate value. This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered in combination with the other corrections discussed below, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Ministerial Error Allegations From Petitioners Billing Adjustments Petitioners state that the Department inadvertently did not account for Paslode's reported billing adjustments. Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust the gross unit price to account for these billing adjustments in the targeted dumping analysis program. In addition, Petitioners argue that this same change needs to be made to Paslode's margin calculation programs. We agree that the Department did not account for certain billing adjustments in the targeted dumping and margin calculation programs. Paslode reported that it incurred billing adjustments in its January 3, 2008, supplemental Section C questionnaire response and we indicated that we were adjusting for these billing adjustments. *See* Memorandum to the File from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Paslode, dated January 15, 2008 (“Paslode Analysis Memorandum”). However, the Department inadvertently did not include billing adjustments in Paslode's margin calculation program. This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered in combination with the other corrections discussed below, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Profit Surrogate Value Petitioners argue that the Department used the incorrect surrogate value for profit in the CEP profit calculation in Paslode's targeted dumping analysis program. We agree that the Department inadvertently mis-entered the profit surrogate value in the CEP profit calculation in Paslode's targeted dumping analysis program. This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered in combination with the other corrections discussed in this notice, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Petitioners argue that the Department inadvertently entered the incomplete surrogate brokerage and handling charge in the calculation of Paslode's movement expenses. We agree that the Department inadvertently only entered the surrogate brokerage and handling charge out to two decimal points instead of five in the calculation of Paslode's movement expenses. This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered together with the other corrections discussed in this notice, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Amended Preliminary Determination We determine that these allegations qualify as ministerial errors as defined in section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations because they result in a change of more than five absolute percentage points to Paslode's dumping margin. Accordingly, we have corrected the errors alleged by Paslode and Petitioners. *See* Memorandum to the File from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Amended Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Paslode, dated January 30, 2008 (“Paslode Amended Prelim Analysis Memorandum”). As a result of correcting the above errors made to Paslode's margin, the margin for the companies granted separate rate status must also be revised because the margin for those companies was partially derived from Paslode's margin. *See* Paslode Amended Prelim Analysis Memorandum at Exhibit 5. As a result of corrections of ministerial errors, the weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Certain Steel Nails From the PRC 2 Exporter Producer Weighted- average margin (percent) Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.^ Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 4.70 Xingya Group:* Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd 44.57 Senco-xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd Senco-xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd Jisco Corporation^ Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd 19.12 Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.^ Qingdao Koram Steel Co., Ltd 19.12 Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd.^ Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd.; Rizhao Changxing Nail-Making Co., Ltd 19.12 Kyung Dong Corp.* Rizhao Qingdong Electric Appliance Co., Ltd 19.12 Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd. * Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.* Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Beijing Hongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery Co., Ltd 19.12 Chongqing Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd.* Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd 19.12 China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd.* Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd 19.12 Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd.* Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Hewang Nail Making Factory 19.12 Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.* Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.* Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd.^ Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd 19.12 China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.^ China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd 19.12 Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.^ Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.^ Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd 19.12 Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.^ Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd 19.12 Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.^ Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd 19.12 Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.* Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory 19.12 Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.^ Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd 19.12 Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.^ Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd.^ Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd 19.12 SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd.+ S-mart Tianjin Technology Development Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) Textile & Garment Co., Ltd.; Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation* Huanghua Shenghua Hardware Manufactory Factory; Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory; Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongcang Metallic Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Certified Products International Inc.+ Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intnl. Industry & Trade Corp.; Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.; Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Yitian (Nanjing) Hardware Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Da Yu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.; Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan; Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.; Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 19.12 Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware Products Factory; Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Factory 19.12 Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd.* Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co., Ltd.; Haixing Hongda Hardware Production Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Xinda Nail Production Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huachang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company; Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jin Gang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Linda Metal Company; Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts Production Co., Ltd.; Wuqiao Huifeng Hardware Production Co., Ltd 19.12 Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.* Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Products Factory; Wuqiao County Xinchuang Hardware Products Factory; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Haixin Linhai Hardware Products Factory; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding Metal Products Factory; Tianjin Jishili Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Baolin Nail-Making Machinery Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Xinya Nail Co., Ltd 19.12 Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp.* Tianjin JLHY Metal Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Qingdao D&L Group Ltd.* Tianjin City Daman Port Area Jinding Metal Products Factory; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Dong'e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., Ltd.* Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd 19.12 Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd.+ Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd 19.12 Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.* Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd 19.12 Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.^ Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd 19.12 S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd.^ Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail Factory; Tianjin Shishun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongchang Metal Product Co., Ltd 19.12 Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Manufacture Plant; Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails Manufacture Plant; Tianjin Dagang Longhua Metal Products Plant; Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jietong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Qichuan Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing Materials Co., Ltd 19.12 Union Enterprise Co., Ltd.^ Union Enterprise Co., Ltd 19.12 Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Co., Ltd.* Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Co., Ltd 19.12 PT Enterprise Inc.+ Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd.^ Yitian Nanjinghardware Co., Ltd 19.12 Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.+ Cym (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanghai Seti Enterprise International Co., Ltd.* Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co. Ltd 19.12 Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.* Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd.^ Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd 19.12 Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.* Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd 19.12 Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd.* Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd 19.12 Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd 19.12 Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd 19.12 Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd.* Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd 19.12 Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd.* Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd.* 19.12 Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 19.12 Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.* Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd 19.12 Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.+ Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 19.12 The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.^ The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd 19.12 Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation* Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Hardware Factory 19.12 PRC-wide 118.04 2 Companies designated with a “^” are wholly foreign owned, “+” are located in a market economy, and a “*” are joint-venture companies between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese owned, as explained above in the “SEPARATE RATES” section. The collection of bonds or cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised accordingly and parties will be notified of this determination, in accordance with section 733(d) and

(f)of the Act. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our amended preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of certain lined paper products, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). Dated: January 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2273 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-842] Raw Flexible Magnets From Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Catherine Cartsos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3174 and

(202)482-1757, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Preliminary Determination On October 11, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan. See *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan* , 72 FR 59071 (October 18, 2007). The notice of initiation stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determinations for this investigation no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation ( *e.g.* , February 28, 2008), in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On January 16, 2008, the petitioner, Magnum Magnetics Corporation, made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary determination with respect to Taiwan. The petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determination in order to allow the Department additional time to address several complex issues such as the appropriate model-matching characteristics. For the reason identified by the petitioner and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination with respect to Taiwan under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 50 days to April 18, 2008. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: January 31, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2285 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-820, A-428-830, A-475-829, A-580-847, A-412-822, C-475-830] Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom and the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar From Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom; and the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on SSB from Italy. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 4689 (February 1, 2007). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determined that revocation of these orders would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and The United Kingdom* , 73 FR 5869 (January 31, 2008) (“ *ITC Final* ”). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the AD orders on SSB from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, and the CVD order on SSB from Italy. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007 (AD Orders) and March 8, 2007 (CVD Order). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3853 and

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to these AD and CVD orders is “stainless steel bar,” which includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.,* cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.,* cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The stainless steel bar subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive. Background On March 7, 2002, the Department issued the AD orders on SSB from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From France* , 67 FR 10385 (March 7, 2002); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Germany* , 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002); *Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Italy* , 67 FR 10384 (March 7, 2002); *Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Korea* , 67 FR 10381 (March 7, 2002); *Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From the United Kingdom* , 67 FR 10381 (March 7, 2002). On March 8, 2002, the Department issued the CVD order on SSB from Italy. *See Countervailing Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Italy* , 67 FR 10670 (March 8, 2002). On February 1, 2007, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset reviews of the AD orders on SSB from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, and the CVD order on SSB from Italy. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 4689 (February 1, 2007). As a result of its sunset reviews of these orders, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. *See Stainless Steel Bar from France, Italy, South Korea and the United Kingdom; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 72 FR 30772 (June 4, 2007); *Stainless Steel Bar from Germany; Final Results of the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 56985 (October 5, 2007); *Stainless Steel Bar From Italy: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order* , 72 FR 31288 (June 6, 2007). The Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the AD orders to be revoked and the level of subsidy likely to prevail were the CVD order to be revoked. On January 31, 2008, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of these orders would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See ITC Final* and USITC Publication 3981 (January 2008), entitled *Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-413 and 731-TA-913-916 & 918 (Review)). Determination As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of these orders is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the AD orders on SSB from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, and the CVD order on SSB from Italy. Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is March 7, 2007 (AD Orders) and March 8, 2007 (CVD Order). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after March 7, 2007 (AD Orders) and March 8, 2007 (CVD Order). Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year sunset reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2008. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2274 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Announcement of a Public Meeting To Discuss the USG IPv6 Testing Program AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)invites interested parties, including accreditors, testing laboratories and test equipment suppliers, to attend a meeting regarding the conformity assessment scheme proposed for the evaluation of Internet Protocol Version 6

(IPv6)products to be purchased by federal agencies. The purpose of the meeting is to announce details of the proposed testing program for IPv6 devices, and specifically, to identify potential accreditation bodies to participate in the program. DATES: The workshop will be held on February 19, 2008, from 9 a.m. till 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Building 101, Lecture Room B. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Nightingale, 301 975 4171, *usgv6-project@antd.nist.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2005 the Office of Management and Budget initiated a policy to expedite adoption and deployment of IPv6 within the Federal Government ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-22.pdf* ). As part of this policy, NIST was directed to develop a standard to address IPv6 compliance for the Federal Government. In response, NIST has developed NIST SP 500-267 “A Profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government” that provides such a standard and outlines the basic parameters for a compliance testing program. (see: *http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/.* ) The USG IPv6 Testing Program will require that products document claims of compliance to the profile through a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity

(SDOC)in accordance with ISO/IEC 17050. Such declarations will be traceable to specific test results from laboratories accredited to the specific requirements of the IPv6 Test Program, including full compliance with ISO/IEC 17025— *General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories* . Laboratory accreditation will be provided by bodies operating in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011— *General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies* . The scope of laboratory accreditation includes test methods for computer network protocol conformance and interoperability testing based on open public test suites. The detailed set of test methods and validation procedures are still under development. One purpose of this meeting is to discuss the general plans for the development and execution of the test program and to identify parties interested in collaborating in the further development of its details. Provisional Agenda 1. The USG IPv6 profile, its components and timing constraints. 2. Accreditor qualification. 3. Test method validation. 4. Suppliers Declaration of Conformity. 5. Discussion. All intending participants must register in advance, to gain access to the campus. Due to space limitations, there is a limit of 60 participants in this workshop. Precedence will be given to the first two representatives of each accreditation body and IPv6 testing laboratory. Please register early and designate your primary representative, in case there is a further need, due to a high response rate, to limit participation to one representative per organization to ensure that all interested parties can participate. Access to the NIST campus and the room cannot be guaranteed for unregistered participants. Dated: January 31, 2008. Richard F. Kayser, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-2223 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF09 Endangered and Threatened Species: Program Review for Section 7 Counterpart Regulations National Fire Plan Activities AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; availability of report. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)announces the availability of a joint report on the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's use of the counterpart regulations for projects that support the National Fire Plan. ADDRESSES: The report and related documents are available for review upon written request or on-line from the NMFS website: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/* . You may also send an e-mail request to *NMFS.nationalfireplan@noaa.gov* , or a written request to: Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13660, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-1401; fax (301)427-2523. Specify whether you wish to receive a hard copy by U.S. mail or an electronic copy by e-mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Garrett, Endangered Species Division at (301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Alternative Consultation Agreements NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)have with the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)and the Forest Service (FS), conducted a review of the determinations that BLM and FS made under the joint counterpart regulations for Endangered Species Act

(ESA)section 7 consultation. The counterpart regulations, codified in 50 CFR part 402 subpart C, provide an optional alternative to the standard section 7 consultation process described in subparts A and B, and were developed specifically for agency projects that authorize, fund, or carry out actions that support the National Fire Plan. The National Fire Plan, part of the President's 2002 Healthy Forests Initiative, is an interagency strategy for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fires and resorting fire-adapted ecosystems. The intent of the counterpart regulations is to eliminate the need to conduct informal consultation and obtain written concurrence from the FWS and NMFS for those National Fire Plan actions that the FS or BLM determines are “not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)” any listed species or designated critical habitat. According to the counterpart regulations for National Fire Plan activities, the FS or BLM may make NLAA determinations for fire plan projects after entering into an Alternative Consultation Agreement with FWS and NMFS, and upon implementing the provisions of the ACA. Each ACA outlines the procedures and roles of the agencies and specific requirements for reporting, training and execution of self-certification, and conducting periodic program monitoring of the use of the counterpart regulations. With the publication of this Notice of Availability, NMFS and FWS are announcing the completion of the first review of the FS's and BLM's use of the counterpart regulations and the availability of the report describing the results of the program review and recommendations for improving their decisions made pursuant to this authority. The results of the first review are available on-line from the NMFS website: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/* . Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: February 1, 2008. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2278 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF47 Endangered Species; File No. 1595 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for modification SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mr. Michael M. Hastings, University of Maine, 5717 Corbett Hall, Orono, Maine 04469, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1595-01. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: The modification request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular modification request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 1595. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Belmas or Malcolm Mohead, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification to Permit No. 1595-01, issued on May 1, 2007 (72 FR 19469) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). Permit No. 1595-01 authorizes the permit holder to: capture, anesthetize, measure, weigh, sex (borescope), Carlin and PIT tag, recover and release up to 70 sub-adult and adult shortnose sturgeon annually. Up to 30 sub-adult and adult shortnose sturgeon, annually, would be fitted (or implanted) with an external (or internal) transmitter, in addition to the previously mentioned procedures. This permit also authorizes the annual lethal take of up to 50 shortnose sturgeon eggs, up to 30 of which may be transported to the lab for genetic sampling. Up to 2 incidental mortalities of shortnose sturgeon each year is also currently authorized. The permit holder is now requesting authorization to:

(1)increase the total annual take of shortnose sturgeon from 100 fish to 200 fish;

(2)expand netting efforts to include currently restricted areas (i.e., within 0.5 miles of the confluence of the Penobscot River with Cove Brook, and the Kenduskeag River);

(3)add D-net sampling as a method of sturgeon egg collection;

(4)add non-lethal blood sampling as a procedure (which would be conducted on up to 30 fish of which the capture and handling is already authorized); and

(5)add and remove personnel authorized to conduct research activities. The purpose of the proposed modification is to better assess the distribution, movements, abundance and spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the Penobscot River, Maine. This modification would be valid through the expiration date of the original permit, March 31, 2012. Dated: February 1, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2277 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE83 Incidental Take of Marine Mammals; Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Missile Launch Operations from San Nicolas Island, CA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a letter of authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given that a letter of authorization

(LOA)to take three species of marine mammals incidental to missile launch operations from San Nicolas Island, CA

(SNI)has been issued to the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWC-WD), Point Mugu, CA. DATES: This authorization is effective from February 3, 2008, through October 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application, LOA, and Navy monitoring report are available for review in the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by contacting one of the individuals mentioned below (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, NMFS,

(301)713-2289 ext. 172. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs NMFS to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing), if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to five years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking incidental to target missile operations on San Nicolas Island, CA, were published on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52132), and remain in effect until October 2, 2008. Pursuant to these regulations, NMFS has issued an LOA to the NAWC-WD. Issuance of the LOA is based on a finding made in the preamble to the final rule that the total takings by this project (with the mitigation) will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for relevant subsistence uses. NMFS also finds that the applicant will meet the requirements contained in the implementing regulations and LOA, including monitoring and reporting requirements. According to the draft technical report, the NAWC-WD performed a total of three missile launches between February and November 2007. A dual launch of Rolling Airframe Missiles(RAM) occurred on 26 April, 2007; and single GQM-163A Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target

(SSST)were launched on June 12 and 13, 2007. California sea lions were observed during all three launches on all three launch dates. Northern elephant seals were observed during all three launches on the three dates. Pacific harbor seals were not observed during launches on any launch dates. Based on monitoring efforts between February and November 2007, the NAWC-WD estimates that approximately 567 sea lions, 40 harbor seals, and no elephant seals were affected by launch sounds. There was no evidence of injury or mortality during or immediately succeeding the launches for any pinniped species. NMFS finds that the level of taking under the 2008 LOA will be consistent with the findings made in the final rule for this action. Dated: February 1, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2282 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF45 Marine Mammals; File No. 42-1908 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mystic Aquarium, 55 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355 (Dr. Lisa Mazzaro, Principal Investigator) has been issued a permit to conduct research and enhancement on Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ) being held in captivity and to import and export parts from all cetaceans and pinniped species (excluding walrus) for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 31811) that a request for a scientific research permit to take the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ). Mystic Aquarium has been issued a permit to continue activities authorized under Permit No. 42-1642-03 for the following two projects: Project 1: Research and display of captive Steller sea lions including authorization

(1)to import or receive a second intact adult male Steller sea lion and subsequently return this animal to its facility of origin, if necessary; and

(2)to import up to nine female Steller sea lions from the Vancouver Aquarium, and to receive a “non-releasable” one year old male Steller sea lion from The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, California. At any one time the maximum number of adult male SSL maintained at Mystic Aquarium will be two and the number of females and pups will not exceed nine. Project 2: Receipt, import and export of tissues from a maximum of 10,000 animals, up to 30 samples per animal per year (i.e., 5000 pinniped and 5000 cetaceans) under NMFS jurisdiction in the U.S. and abroad (i.e. worldwide). Samples will be analyzed for purposes of research on marine mammal health (e.g., nutrition, disease, immune function, environmental stressors). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit:

(1)was applied for in good faith;

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: February 1, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2281 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF50 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public meeting in Pago Pago, American Samoa to discuss potential management actions pertaining to pelagic longline and pelagic purse seine fishing in offshore waters around American Samoa. DATES: The public meeting will be held on Saturday February 23, 2008 at the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Conference Room. Written comments will be accepted until March 7, 2008. For specific times, and the agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held on Saturday February 23, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Conference Room, Pago Pago, American Samoa. Send written comments to Kitty M. Simonds, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808)522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda The agenda for the meeting is as follows. Council is seeking public input on agenda items 2 and 3. Saturday February 23, 2008 9 a.m.—1 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. American Samoa Purse-Seine Close Area Alternatives 3. American Samoa Pelagic Longline Management Program Modification Alternatives 4. Public Comments American Samoa Purse-Seine Closed Area Alternatives At its 138th meeting held in June 2007, the Council discussed the potential for increases in purse seine fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding American Samoa and directed staff to develop a paper examining potential options to expand the existing 50 miles large pelagic vessel exclusion zone specifically for purse seine vessels to avoid potential gear conflicts between these vessels and the American Samoa longline and domestic troll vessels. At its 139th meeting held in October 2007, the Council recommended an amendment be developed which included a range of preliminary alternatives as follows: Alternative 1: No-Action Under the no-action alternative waters within 3-50 nm around American Samoa would continue to be closed to pelagic fishing by vessels greater than 50ft in length including purse seine vessels Alternative 2: Close Entire EEZ Waters around American Samoa to Purse Seine Fishing Under Alternative 2, a closed area would be established to exclude purse seine vessels from operating within all EEZ waters around American Samoa Alternative 3: Close 75 nm around American Samoa to Purse Seine Fishing (Preliminarily Preferred) Under Alternative 3, a closed area would be established to exclude purse seine vessels from operating within 75 nm around American Samoa American Samoa Longline Management Program Modification Alternatives At its 139th Council meeting, the Council directed staff to draft a regulatory amendment that would provide a framework to adjust the American Samoa longline limited entry program, including establishing a process to reopen the limited entry permit application process, amending the large (>50ft) pelagic vessel 50 nm closed areas, and eliminating the minimum landing requirements for all vessel size classes in the American Samoa longline limited entry program. These issues were brought before the Council by fishery participants who were concerned that rapid changes in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery over the past several years has resulted in lower than anticipated participation in the fishery, and that the current measures including the large vessel area closure, minimum landing requirements and initial permit qualification criteria be reviewed in order to ensure that the management program continues to ensure sustained participation in the domestic longline fishery and to maintain opportunities for substantial participation by indigenous American Samoans in this fishery while minimizing adverse impacts on American Samoa communities. Regarding potential modification to the American Samoa pelagic longline limited entry permit and landing requirements, the preliminary alternatives to be discussed include: Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, the Council would not re-open the permit application process and would not remove the minimum landing requirement. Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, the Council would not re-open the permit application process but would remove the minimum landing requirement. Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3 the Council would re-open the permit application process but would not remove the minimum landing requirement. Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4 the Council would re-open the permit application process and would also remove the minimum landing requirement. Regarding the American Samoa large pelagic vessel area closure, the preliminary alternatives to be discussed include: Alternative 1: No Action, Maintain Current 50 nm closure to vessels greater than 50 ft. Under Alternative 1, the Council would maintain the current 50 nautical mile area closure for pelagic fishing vessels greater than 50 ft. around the islands of the American Samoa Archipelago Alternative 2: Modify the area closure to 25 nautical miles Under Alternative 2, the Council would temporarily reduce the area closure from 50 nautical miles to 25 nautical miles. The Council would also review the status of the fishery every two years to determine whether the closure should be maintained at 25 miles or return back to 50 nautical miles. Alternative 3: Modify the area closure to 12 nautical miles Under Alternative 3, the Council would temporarily reduce the area closure from 50 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles. The Council would also review the status of the fishery every two years to determine whether the closure should be maintained at 12 miles or return back to 50 nautical miles. Alternative 4: Suspend the 50 mile area closure indefinitely Under Alternative 4, the Council would suspend the 50 mile area closure indefinitely. The Council would also review the status of the fishery every two years to determine whether the closure should be returned back to 50 nautical miles. The order in which agenda items addressed may change. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda and written comments will be accepted until March 7, 2008. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808)522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 4, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2250 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), has submitted a public information collection request

(ICR)entitled the Financial Management Survey

(FMS)form to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Mrs. Stacy Bishop at

(202)606-6962. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call

(202)565-2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in this **Federal Register** :

(1)By fax to:

(202)395-6974, Attention: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and

(2)Electronically by e-mail to: *Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. Comments A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on November 1, 2007. This comment period ended December 31, 2007. No public comments were received from this notice. *Description:* The Corporation is seeking approval of the Financial Management Survey form which will be used by Grants Management Specialists at the Corporation to assess the capacity of potential grantees to manage federal funds. The Financial Management Survey

(FMS)form must be completed as a pre-award assessment tool by potential grantees to address questions about its organization type, financial systems, funds management, and internal controls to administer federal funds properly. The FMS is used to ensure uniform consideration of the capacity of prospective grantees to manage federal funds and becomes the basis for determining the areas of the organization's financial and management systems that may warrant technical assistance. *Type of Review:* Renewal with minor revisions. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* Financial Management Survey Form. *OMB Number:* 3045-0102. *Agency Number:* None. *Affected Public:* First-time applicants or current grantees re-competing for funding. *Total Respondents:* 20 annually. *Frequency:* One

(1)time. *Average Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 20 hours annually. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Dated: February 1, 2008. Peg Rosenberry, Director, Office of Grants Management. [FR Doc. E8-2286 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0025] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Buy American Act, Trade Agreements Act Certificate AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Buy American Act, Trade Agreements Act Certificate. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56728, on October 4, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Murphy, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)208-6925. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, unless specifically exempted by statute or regulation, agencies are required to evaluate offers over a certain dollar limitation not to supply an eligible product without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American program. Offerors identify excluded end products on this certificate. The contracting officer uses the information to identify the offered items which are domestic end products. Items having components of unknown origin are considered to have been mined, produced, or manufactured outside the United States, a designated country, Caribbean Basin country or Free Trade Agreement Country. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 1,140. *Responses Per Respondent:* 10. *Total Responses:* 11,400. *Hours Per Response:* .109. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,238. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0025, Buy American Act, Trade Agreements Act Certificate, in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2279 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0022] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Duty-Free Entry AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning duty-free entry. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56338, on October 3, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Murphy, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)208-6925. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose United States laws impose duties on foreign supplies imported into the customs territory of the United States. Certain exemptions from these duties are available to Government agencies. These exemptions are used whenever the anticipated savings outweigh the administrative costs associated with processing required documentation. When a Government contractor purchases foreign supplies, it must notify the contracting officer to determine whether the supplies should be duty-free. In addition, all shipping documents and containers must specify certain information to assure the duty-free entry of the supplies. The contracting officer analyzes the information submitted by the contractor to determine whether or not supplies should enter the country duty-free. The information, the contracting officer's determination, and the U.S. Customs forms are placed in the contract file. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 1,330. *Responses Per Respondent:* 10. *Total Responses: 13,300.* *Hours Per Response:* .5. *Total Burden Hours:* 6,650. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0022, Duty-Free Entry, in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2293 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0014] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Statement and Acknowledgment (Standard Form 1413) AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Submission for OMB Review; Statement and Acknowledgment (Standard Form 1413). A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56336, on October 3, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on April 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Woodson, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)501-3775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Standard Form 1413, Statement and Acknowledgment, is used by all executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, to obtain a statement from contractors that the proper clauses have been included in subcontracts. The form includes a signed contractor acknowledgment of the inclusion of those clauses in the subcontract. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 31,500. *Responses Per Respondent:* 2. *Total Responses:* 63,000. *Hours Per Response:* .05. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,150. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0014, Statement and Acknowledgment (Standard Form 1413), in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2294 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0001] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Standard Form 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Standard Form 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56337, on October 3, 2008. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward Chambers, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)501-3221. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose The Affidavit of Individual Surety (Standard Form

(SF)28) is used by all executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, to obtain information from individuals wishing to serve as sureties to Government bonds. To qualify as a surety on a Government bond, the individual must show a net worth not less than the penal amount of the bond on the SF 28. It is an elective decision on the part of the maker to use individual sureties instead of other available sources of surety or sureties for Government bonds. We are not aware if other formats exist for the collection of this information. The information on SF 28 is used to assist the contracting officer in determining the acceptability of individuals proposed as sureties. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 500. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1.43. *Total Responses:* 715. *Hours Per Response:* .4. *Total Burden Hours:* 286. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0001, Standard Form 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety, in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2295 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0018] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Certification of Independent Price Determination and Parent Company and Identifying Data AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning certification of independent price determination and parent company and identifying data. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 64587, on November 16, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on April, 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Woodson, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)501-3775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Agencies are required to report under 41 U.S.C. 252(d) and 10 U.S.C. 2305(d) suspected violations of the antitrust laws ( *e.g.* , collusive bidding, identical bids, uniform estimating systems, etc.) to the Attorney General. As a first step in assuring that Government contracts are not awarded to firms violating such laws, offerors on Government contracts must complete the certificate of independent price determination. An offer will not be considered for award where the certificate has been deleted or modified. Deletions or modifications of the certificate and suspected false certificates are reported to the Attorney General. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 64,250. *Responses Per Respondent:* 20. *Total Responses:* 1,285,000. *Hours Per Response:* .01. *Total Burden hours:* 12,850. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0018, Certification of Independent Price Determination and Parent Company and Identifying Data, in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2296 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0024] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Buy American Act Certificate AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning the Buy American Act Certificate. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56337, on October 3, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Murphy, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)208-6925. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose The Buy American Act requires that only domestic end products be acquired for public use unless specifically authorized by statute or regulation, provided that the cost of the domestic products is reasonable. The Buy American Act Certificate provides the contracting office with the information necessary to identify which products offered are domestic end products and which are of foreign origin. Components of unknown origin are considered to have been supplied from outside the United States. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 3,707. *Responses Per Respondent:* 15. *Total Responses:* 55,605. *Hours Per Response:* .109. *Total Burden Hours:* 6,061. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0024, Buy American Act Certificate, in all correspondence. Dated: January 28, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2308 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Air University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Air University Board of Visitors. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the Air University Board of Visitors' meeting will take place on Monday, April 13th, 2008, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m., and Tuesday, April 14th, 2008, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. in the Air University Commander's Conference Room, Headquarters Air University and again on Tuesday, 6 p.m.-8 p.m., at the Officers' Club, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112. The purpose of this meeting is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of Air University. The agenda will include topics relating to the policies, programs, and initiatives of Air University educational programs. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, all sessions of the Air University Board of Visitors' meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the Air University Board of Visitors should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Air University Board of Visitors until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Air University Board of Visitors' Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dorothy Reed, Federal Designated Officer, Air University Headquarters, 55 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, telephone

(334)953-5159 or Mrs. Diana Bunch, Alternate Federal Designated Officer, same address, telephone

(334)953-4547. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 08-569 Filed 2-5-08; 12:08 pm]

Connectionstraces to 47

Traces to 47 documents