Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-02-15 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

33,753 words·~153 min read·/register/2008/02/15/08-677

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071029546-7546-02] RIN 0648-AU85 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to modify the Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut fishery and sablefish fishery by revising regulations governing the use of commercial halibut quota share
(QS)and the processing of non-IFQ species when processed halibut is onboard a vessel. This action amends current regulations to allow persons holding category A halibut QS to process IFQ regardless of whether a QS holder with unused category B, C, or D halibut QS is onboard the vessel. This action also allows catcher/processor vessels to process non-IFQ species regardless of whether any processed IFQ species is onboard the vessel. This action is necessary to improve the efficiency of fishermen fishing on catcher/processor vessels. The action is intended to allow halibut QS holders greater flexibility in using their QS, allow use of crew who hold unused category B, C, or D halibut QS while onboard a category A halibut QS vessel, and increase the product quality of non-IFQ species harvested incidentally to IFQ halibut. DATES: Effective March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE)and the Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action are available by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; or via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Carls, 907-586-7228 or *becky.carls@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC)and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut ( *Hippoglossus stenolepis* ) through regulations established under the authority of the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC regulations are published in the **Federal Register** as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007). The Halibut Act also authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop and submit regulations to the Secretary to allocate harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen. Regulations developed by the Council are implemented only with the approval of the Secretary. Like the original Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (IFQ Program) regulations and subsequent amendments to them, this action was developed by the Council under authority of the Halibut Act. The Council, under the authority of the Halibut Act (with respect to Pacific halibut) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (with respect to sablefish), adopted the IFQ Program in 1991. The IFQ Program established a limited access system for managing the fixed gear Pacific halibut fishery in Convention waters in and off Alaska and sablefish fisheries in waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone, located between 3 and 200 miles off Alaska. The IFQ Program was approved by NMFS in January 1993, and promulgated in Federal regulation on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). Fishing under the IFQ Program began on March 15, 1995, ending the open access fishery which preceded its implementation. Regulations implementing the IFQ Program are at 50 CFR part 679. In addition, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, also govern the halibut IFQ fishery. Background and Need for Action The background and need for this action were described in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on November 14, 2007 (72 FR 64034). In summary, this final rule will relieve some of the restrictions affecting holders of commercial halibut QS. Under the IFQ Program, QS represents a harvesting privilege for a person. On an annual basis, QS holders are authorized to harvest a specified poundage which is issued by NMFS as IFQ. Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.40(a)(5) divide QS into vessel categories (A, B, C, and D for halibut) with unique restrictions designed to prevent excessive consolidation and regulate total harvest. With few exceptions, halibut QS or IFQ assigned to a vessel category may not be used to harvest IFQ species on a vessel of a different category. The IFQ Program includes an economic protection measure prohibiting the processing of non-IFQ species (e.g., Pacific cod) onboard a vessel on which a person holds catcher vessel halibut IFQ. This prohibition resulted in the unanticipated waste of species caught incidentally to halibut, especially rockfish and Pacific cod. In addition, persons fishing halibut IFQ derived from category A QS could not process any species if a person onboard the vessel held unused halibut IFQ derived from category B, C, or D QS. Also, operators of catcher/processor vessels fishing for Pacific cod, for example, would have to employ crew members who did not have unused catcher vessel IFQ (i.e., IFQ derived from category B, C, or D halibut QS) for halibut, or catcher/processor operators would have to delay fishing for non-IFQ species until all crew members onboard had fully used their catcher vessel IFQ for halibut. Hence, the processing restriction limited the crew that could be onboard catcher/processor vessels and the timing of fishing by catcher/processor vessels. This action is intended to increase the revenue generated from harvested species by
(1)allowing non-IFQ fish species to be processed on a vessel otherwise authorized to process fish, rather than allowing non-IFQ species to degrade into low value products or be wasted while IFQ species are sought; and
(2)allowing processed and unprocessed IFQ species to be onboard the same vessel during the same fishing trip. This action will allow the processing of non-IFQ and IFQ species on a vessel that is otherwise authorized to process non-IFQ species when any amount of halibut IFQ resulting from QS in categories B, C, or D are held by persons onboard the vessel. This action will not allow the processing of category B, C, or D halibut IFQ onboard a catcher/processor vessel. Instead, this action will allow persons possessing unused catcher vessel category B, C, or D halibut QS to be onboard a catcher/processor vessel when that vessel is harvesting and processing category A halibut or sablefish IFQ or is harvesting and processing non-IFQ species. This action will relieve a restriction on catcher/processor vessels which will increase their efficiency. The regulatory change will remove regulatory text currently at § 679.7(f)(13) and
(14)and § 679.42(k). There is no new regulatory text. Response to Comments The proposed rule for this action was published in the **Federal Register** on November 14, 2007 (72 FR 64034). One commenter submitted a comment to NMFS in support of the rule. Changes From the Proposed Rule No changes are made in this final rule from the proposed rule. Classification The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the halibut fishery and that it is consistent with the Halibut Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule also complies with the Secretary's authority under the Halibut Act to implement management measures for the halibut fishery. A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A description of this action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are presented above in the preamble to this rule. NMFS received one public comment, and that was in support of the proposed rule. No comments were received in response to the IRFA or on the economic impacts of the rule and no changes were made in the proposed rule. A summary of the FRFA follows. This action will directly regulate approximately 3,233 persons holding category B, C, or D halibut QS, 33 catcher/processor vessels, and 1,312 vessels that hold catcher vessel endorsements for vessels less than 60 ft (18.6 m) length overall on their license limitation program permits. NMFS does not possess sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine the precise number of quota share holders considered small entities in the IFQ Program or the number of small entities that will be adversely impacted by this action. NMFS assumes that all directly regulated entities have gross revenues less than $4 million, and that they are thus small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 2004, 1,335 unique IFQ vessels made IFQ landings. Compared with status quo, this action may increase the revenue generated from non-IFQ species harvested by increasing the quality of offloaded product. This action will allow QS holders already authorized to process fish at-sea to optimize the revenue generated from harvested non-IFQ groundfish. Processing capacity is not expected to increase because the number of vessels currently authorized to process groundfish catch onboard while harvesting IFQ derived from category A quota share will not change. This action also may increase benefits to persons holding QS because it allows IFQ to be processed regardless of whether another quota share holder is onboard, including crew holding catcher vessel category B, C, or D QS who are working onboard vessels with category A QS. The purpose of this action is to relieve a restriction on small entities. NMFS is not aware of any additional alternatives to those considered that would accomplish the objectives of this action, the Halibut Act, and other applicable statutes and that would minimize the economic impact of the action on small entities. The Council received two proposals on this issue, incorporated them into what became this final action, and evaluated them jointly after a preliminary review found that they were functionally the same. This action will completely repeal the subject requirements. Repeal will remove a restriction from directly regulated entities and potentially lead to increased profits. Other alternatives might have been designed to limit the ability of this action to accomplish the objectives, by limiting the scope of the repeal to particular species or halibut QS classes, or by providing for a delayed effective date. However, these alternatives would not have been significantly different from this action. They would not have involved substantively different approaches to addressing the problem that had been identified. Moreover, because this action relaxes a restriction on directly regulated small entities, these alternatives would have reduced the potential benefits of this action for these small entities or the classes of entities that might benefit from them. According to NOAA Administrative Order
(NAO)216-6, including the criteria used to determine significance, this rule will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment beyond those effects identified in the previous National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)analysis. An environmental impact statement (EIS; dated December 1992) was prepared for the final rule implementing the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and Community Development Quota Programs (58 FR 59375; November 9, 1993). The scope of the EIS includes the potential environmental impacts of this proposed rule because the EIS analyzed the original IFQ Program, which included analyses of biological and socioeconomic impacts on the environment, affected fishermen, and affected communities. Based on the nature of the proposed rule and the previous environmental analysis, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare either an EIS or an environmental assessment, in accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO 216-6. Copies of the EIS for the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and Community Development Quota Programs and the categorical exclusion for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to this final rule serves as the small entity compliance guide. This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following website: *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: February 11, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* , 1801 *et seq.* , 3631 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 108 447. § 679.7 [Amended] 2. In § 679.7, paragraph (f)(13) is removed and reserved, paragraph (f)(15) is removed, and paragraphs (f)(16) and (f)(17) are redesignated as paragraphs (f)(15) and (f)(16), respectively. § 679.42 [Amended] 3. In § 679.42, paragraph
(k)is removed and paragraph
(l)is redesignated as paragraph (k). [FR Doc. E8-2932 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 32 Friday, February 15, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Docket Nos. AMS-FV-07-0135; FV08-985-2 PR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2008-2009 Marketing Year AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule would establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2008-2009 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2008. This rule invites comments on the establishment of salable quantities and allotment percentages for Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil of 993,067 pounds and 50 percent, respectively, and for Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil of 1,184,748 pounds and 53 percent, respectively. The Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee), the agency responsible for local administration of the marketing order for spearmint oil produced in the Far West, recommended these limitations for the purpose of avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market. DATES: Comments must be received by March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; *Fax:*
(202)720-8938; or Internet: * http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan M. Coleman, Marketing Specialist, and Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; *Telephone:*
(503)326-2724; *Fax:*
(503)326-7440; or *E-mail:* *Sue.Coleman@usda.gov* or *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov* . Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; *Telephone:*
(202)720-2491, *Fax:*
(202)720-8938, or *E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR Part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” This order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This proposed rule would establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West, by class, which may be purchased from or handled for producers by handlers during the 2008-2009 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2008. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Pursuant to authority in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the Committee, with seven of its eight members present, met on October 17, 2007, and recommended salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of oil for the 2008-2009 marketing year. The Committee unanimously recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil of 993,067 pounds and 50 percent, respectively. For Native spearmint oil, the Committee unanimously recommended the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage of 1,184,748 pounds and 53 percent, respectively. This rule would limit the amount of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2008-2009 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2008. Salable quantities and allotment percentages have been placed into effect each season since the order's inception in 1980. The U.S. production of Scotch spearmint oil is concentrated in the Far West, which includes Washington, Idaho, and Oregon and a portion of Nevada and Utah. Scotch spearmint oil is also produced in the Midwest states of Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as in the States of Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota. The production area covered by the marketing order currently accounts for approximately 62 percent of the annual U.S. sales of Scotch spearmint oil. When the order became effective in 1980, the Far West had 72 percent of the world's sales of Scotch spearmint oil. While the Far West is still the leading producer of Scotch spearmint oil, its share of world sales is now estimated to be about 46 percent. This loss in world sales for the Far West region is directly attributed to the increase in global production. Other factors that have played a significant role include the overall quality of the imported oil and technological advances that allow for more blending of lower quality oils. Such factors have provided the Committee with challenges in accurately predicting trade demand for Scotch oil. This, in turn, has made it difficult to balance available supplies with demand and to achieve the Committee's overall goal of stabilizing producer and market prices. The marketing order has continued to contribute to price and general market stabilization for Far West producers. The Committee, as well as spearmint oil producers and handlers attending the October 17, 2007, meeting, estimated that the 2007-2008 producer price of Scotch oil would be $14.00 to $15.00 per pound. However, there is very little forward contracting being done at the present time and producers are wary of doing so because of significant increases in their cost of production. This producer price is approaching the cost of production for most producers as indicated in a study from the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service (WSU), which estimates production costs to be between $13.50 and $15.00 per pound. However, this study was completed in 2001 and fuel costs alone have doubled in price. The rises in fuel costs have also increased other petroleum based products, such as tires, fertilizer, and chemicals, which also increase production costs. This low level of producer returns has caused an overall reduction in acreage. When the order became effective in 1980, the Far West region had 9,702 acres of Scotch spearmint. The Committee estimates that the 2007-2008 acreage of Scotch spearmint was about 6,514 acres. Based on the reduced Scotch spearmint acreage, the Committee estimates that production for the 2007-2008 marketing season will be about 793,577 pounds. The Committee recommended the 2008-2009 Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity (993,067 pounds) and allotment percentage (50 percent) utilizing sales estimates for 2008-2009 Scotch spearmint oil as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Scotch spearmint oil sales levels. The Committee is estimating that about 920,000 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil, on average, may be sold during the 2008-2009 marketing year. This will eliminate all available supplies, including the reserve pool, resulting in a zero carry-in on June 1, 2008. Therefore, the recommended salable quantity of 993,067 pounds results in a total available supply of Scotch spearmint oil next year of about 993,067 pounds. The recommendation for the 2008-2009 Scotch spearmint oil volume regulation is consistent with the Committee's stated intent of keeping adequate supplies available at all times, while attempting to stabilize prices at a level adequate to sustain the producers. Furthermore, the recommendation takes into consideration the industry's desire to compete with less expensive oil produced outside the regulated area. Although Native spearmint oil producers are facing market conditions similar to those affecting the Scotch spearmint oil market, the market share is quite different. Over 90 percent of the U.S. production of Native spearmint is produced within the Far West production area. Also, most of the world's supply of Native spearmint is produced in the United States. The supply and demand characteristics of the current Native spearmint oil market, combined with the stabilizing impact of the marketing order, have kept the price relatively steady. The average price for the five year period ending in 2006 is $9.80, which is $0.06 higher than the average price for the ten year period (1997-2006) of $9.74. The Committee considers these levels too low for the majority of producers to maintain viability. The WSU study referenced earlier indicates that the cost of producing Native spearmint oil ranges from $10.26 to $10.92 per pound. Similar to Scotch, the low level of producer returns has also caused an overall reduction in Native spearmint acreage. When the order became effective in 1980, the Far West region had 12,153 acres of Native spearmint. The Committee estimates that the 2007-2008 acreage of Native spearmint was about 8,006 acres. Based on the reduced Native spearmint acreage, the Committee estimates that production for the 2007-2008 marketing season will be about 1,178,745 pounds. The Committee recommended the 2008-2009 Native spearmint oil salable quantity (1,184,748 pounds) and allotment percentage (53 percent) utilizing sales estimates for 2008-2009 Native oil as provided by several of the industry's handlers, as well as historical and current Native spearmint oil sales levels. The Committee is estimating that about 1,250,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil, on average, may be sold during the 2008-2009 marketing year. When considered in conjunction with the estimated carry-in of 56,433 pounds of oil on June 1, 2008, the recommended salable quantity of 1,193,567 pounds results in a total available supply of Native spearmint oil next year of about 1,241,181 pounds. The Committee's method of calculating the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage continues to primarily utilize information on price and available supply as they are affected by the estimated trade demand. The Committee's stated intent is to make adequate supplies available to meet market needs and improve producer prices. The Committee believes that the order has contributed extensively to the stabilization of producer prices, which prior to 1980 experienced wide fluctuations from year to year. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, for example, the average price paid for both classes of spearmint oil ranged from $4.00 per pound to $11.10 per pound during the period between 1968 and 1980. Prices since the order's inception, the period from 1980 to 2006, have generally stabilized at an average price of $12.69 per pound for Scotch spearmint oil and $9.89 per pound for Native spearmint oil. The Committee based its recommendation for the proposed salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil for the 2008-2009 marketing year on the information discussed above, as well as the data outlined below.
(1)Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil
(A)Estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008—0 pounds. This figure is the difference between the revised 2007-2008 marketing year total available supply of 816,718 pounds and the estimated 2007-2008 marketing year trade demand of 816,718 pounds.
(B)Estimated trade demand for the 2008-2009 marketing year—920,000 pounds. This figure is based on input from producers at six Scotch spearmint oil production area meetings held in September 2007, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the October 17, 2007, meeting. The average estimated trade demand provided at the five production area meetings is 924,583 pounds, whereas the estimated handler trade demand ranged from 875,000 to 950,000 pounds. The average of sales over the last five years is 760,152 pounds.
(C)Salable quantity required in the 2008-2009 marketing year production—920,000 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2008-2009 marketing year trade demand (920,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008 (0 pounds).
(D)Total estimated allotment base for the 2008-2009 marketing year—1,986,133 pounds. This figure represents a one percent increase over the revised 2007-2008 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost due to the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.
(E)Computed allotment percentage—46.3 percent. This percentage is computed by dividing the required salable quantity by the total estimated allotment base.
(F)Recommended allotment percentage—50 percent. This recommendation is based on the Committee's determination that the computed 46.3 percent would not adequately supply the potential 2008-2009 market.
(G)The Committee's recommended salable quantity—993,067 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage and the total estimated allotment base.
(H)Estimated available supply for the 2008-2009 marketing year—993,067 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2008-2009 recommended salable quantity (993,067 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008 (0 pounds).
(2)Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil
(A)Estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008—56,433 pounds. The Committee's estimated carry-in reflects anticipated increases to the salable quantity and allotment percentage that may be needed to meet demand during the remainder of the 2007-2008 marketing year.
(B)Estimated trade demand for the 2008-2009 marketing year—1,250,000 pounds. This figure is based on input from producers at the six Native spearmint oil production area meetings held in September 2007, as well as estimates provided by handlers and other meeting participants at the October 17, 2007, meeting. The average estimated trade demand provided at the six production area meetings was 1,241,667 pounds, whereas the handler estimate ranged from 1,200,000 pounds to 1,250,000 pounds.
(C)Salable quantity required from the 2008-2009 marketing year production—1,193,567 pounds. This figure is the difference between the estimated 2008-2009 marketing year trade demand (1,250,000 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008 (56,433 pounds).
(D)Total estimated allotment base for the 2008-2009 marketing year—2,235,374 pounds. This figure represents a one percent increase over the revised 2007-2008 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost due to the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal.
(E)Computed allotment percentage—53.4 percent. This percentage is computed by dividing the required salable quantity by the total estimated allotment base.
(F)Recommended allotment percentage—53 percent. This is the Committee's recommendation based on the computed allotment percentage, the average of the computed allotment percentage figures from the six production area meetings (53.7 percent), and input from producers and handlers at the October 17, 2007, meeting.
(G)The Committee's recommended salable quantity—1,184,748 pounds. This figure is the product of the recommended allotment percentage and the total estimated allotment base.
(H)Estimated available supply for the 2008-2009 marketing year—1,241,181 pounds. This figure is the sum of the 2008-2009 recommended salable quantity (1,184,748 pounds) and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 2008 (56,433 pounds). The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of spearmint oil, which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of producers during a marketing year. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil. The Committee's recommended Scotch and Native spearmint oil salable quantities and allotment percentages of 993,067 pounds and 50 percent, and 1,184,748 pounds and 53 percent, respectively, are based on the Committee's goal of maintaining market stability by avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices, and the anticipated supply and trade demand during the 2008-2009 marketing year. The proposed salable quantities are not expected to cause a shortage of spearmint oil supplies. Any unanticipated or additional market demand for spearmint oil, which may develop during the marketing year, can be satisfied by an increase in the salable quantities. Both Scotch and Native spearmint oil producers who produce more than their annual allotments during the 2008-2009 marketing year may transfer such excess spearmint oil to a producer with spearmint oil production less than their annual allotment or put it into the reserve pool until November 1, 2008. This proposed regulation, if adopted, would be similar to regulations issued in prior seasons. Costs to producers and handlers resulting from this rule are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from a stable market and improved returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this proposed rule, USDA has reviewed the Committee's marketing policy statement for the 2008-2009 marketing year. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends volume regulations, fully meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order. During its discussion of potential 2008-2009 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered:
(1)The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers;
(2)the estimated demand for each class of oil;
(3)the prospective production of each class of oil;
(4)the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year;
(5)the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage;
(6)producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and
(7)general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed. The establishment of these salable quantities and allotment percentages would allow for anticipated market needs. In determining anticipated market needs, consideration by the Committee was given to historical sales, as well as changes and trends in production and demand. This rule also provides producers with information on the amount of spearmint oil that should be produced for the 2008-2009 season in order to meet anticipated market demand. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 58 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 90 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that 2 of the 8 handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 19 of the 58 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 21 of the 90 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities. The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, most spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses. Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and as such are more at risk from market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual allotment and do not have the luxury of having other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable price and market provides small producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses. Thus, the market and price stability provided by the order potentially benefit the small producer more than such provisions benefit large producers. Even though a majority of handlers and producers of spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities, the volume control feature of this order has small entity orientation. This proposed rule would establish the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the Far West by class that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2008-2009 marketing year. The Committee recommended this rule to help maintain stability in the spearmint oil market by avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices. Establishing quantities to be purchased or handled during the marketing year through volume regulations allows producers to plan their spearmint planting and harvesting to meet expected market needs. The provisions of §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order authorize this rule. Instability in the spearmint oil sub-sector of the mint industry is much more likely to originate on the supply side than the demand side. Fluctuations in yield and acreage planted from season-to-season tend to be larger than fluctuations in the amount purchased by buyers. Demand for spearmint oil tends to be relatively stable from year-to-year. The demand for spearmint oil is expected to grow slowly for the foreseeable future because the demand for consumer products that use spearmint oil will likely expand slowly, in line with population growth. Demand for spearmint oil at the farm level is derived from retail demand for spearmint-flavored products such as chewing gum, toothpaste, and mouthwash. The manufacturers of these products are by far the largest users of mint oil. However, spearmint flavoring is generally a very minor component of the products in which it is used, so changes in the raw product price have no impact on retail prices for those goods. Spearmint oil production tends to be cyclical. Years of large production, with demand remaining reasonably stable, have led to periods in which large producer stocks of unsold spearmint oil have depressed producer prices for a number of years. Shortages and high prices may follow in subsequent years, as producers respond to price signals by cutting back production. The significant variability is illustrated by the fact that the coefficient of variation (a standard measure of variability; “CV”) of Far West spearmint oil production from 1980 through 2006 was about 0.23. The CV for spearmint oil grower prices was about 0.14, well below the CV for production. This provides an indication of the price stabilizing impact of the marketing order. Production in the shortest marketing year was about 50 percent of the 26-year average (1.84 million pounds from 1980 through 2006) and the largest crop was approximately 167 percent of the 26-year average. A key consequence is that in years of oversupply and low prices the season average producer price of spearmint oil is below the average cost of production (as measured by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service). The wide fluctuations in supply and prices that result from this cycle, which was even more pronounced before the creation of the marketing order, can create liquidity problems for some producers. The marketing order was designed to reduce the price impacts of the cyclical swings in production. However, producers have been less able to weather these cycles in recent years because of the increase in production costs. While prices have been relatively steady, the cost of production has dramatically increased which has caused a hesitation by producers to plant. Producers are also enticed by the prices of alternative crops and their lower cost of production. In an effort to stabilize prices, the spearmint oil industry uses the volume control mechanisms authorized under the order. This authority allows the Committee to recommend a salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of oil for the upcoming marketing year. The salable quantity for each class of oil is the total volume of oil that producers may sell during the marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total allotment base. Each producer is then issued an annual allotment certificate, in pounds, for the applicable class of oil, which is calculated by multiplying the producer's allotment base by the applicable allotment percentage. This is the amount of oil for the applicable class that the producer can sell. By November 1 of each year, the Committee identifies any oil that individual producers have produced above the volume specified on their annual allotment certificates. This excess oil is placed in a reserve pool administered by the Committee. There is a reserve pool for each class of oil that may not be sold during the current marketing year unless USDA approves a Committee recommendation to make a portion of the pool available. However, limited quantities of reserve oil are typically sold to fill deficiencies. A deficiency occurs when on-farm production is less than a producer's allotment. In that case, a producer's own reserve oil can be sold to fill that deficiency. Excess production (higher than the producer's allotment) can be sold to fill other producers' deficiencies. All of this needs to take place by November 1. In any given year, the total available supply of spearmint oil is composed of current production plus carry-over stocks from the previous crop. The Committee seeks to maintain market stability by balancing supply and demand, and to close the marketing year with an appropriate level of carryout. If the industry has production in excess of the salable quantity, then the reserve pool absorbs the surplus quantity of spearmint oil, which goes unsold during that year, unless the oil is needed for unanticipated sales. Under its provisions, the order may attempt to stabilize prices by
(1)limiting supply and establishing reserves in high production years, thus minimizing the price-depressing effect that excess producer stocks have on unsold spearmint oil, and
(2)ensuring that stocks are available in short supply years when prices would otherwise increase dramatically. The reserve pool stocks grown in large production years are drawn down in short crop years. An econometric model was used to assess the impact that volume control has on the prices producers receive for their commodity. Without volume control, spearmint oil markets would likely be over-supplied, resulting in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to the next crop year. The model estimates how much lower producer prices would likely be in the absence of volume controls. The Committee estimated the trade demand for the 2008-2009 marketing year for both classes of oil at 2,170,000 pounds, and that the expected combined carry-in will be 56,433 pounds. This results in a combined required salable quantity of 2,113,567 pounds. Therefore, with volume control, sales by producers for the 2008-2009 marketing year would be limited to 2,177,815 pounds (the recommended salable quantity for both classes of spearmint oil). The recommended salable percentages, upon which 2008-2009 producer allotments are based, are 50 percent for Scotch and 53 percent for Native. Without volume controls, producers would not be limited to these allotment levels, and could produce and sell additional spearmint. The econometric model estimated a $1.40 decline in the season average producer price per pound (from both classes of spearmint oil) resulting from the higher quantities that would be produced and marketed without volume control. The surplus situation for the spearmint oil market that would exist without volume controls in 2008-2009 also would likely dampen prospects for improved producer prices in future years because of the buildup in stocks. The use of volume controls allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. The use of volume controls is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and will not result in fewer retail sales of such products. The Committee discussed alternatives to the recommendations contained in this rule for both classes of spearmint oil. The Committee discussed and rejected the idea of recommending that there not be any volume regulation for both classes of spearmint oil because of the severe price-depressing effects that would occur without volume control. The Committee considered various alternative levels of volume control for Scotch spearmint oil, including increasing the percentage to a less restrictive level, or decreasing the percentage. After considerable discussion the Committee unanimously determined that 993,067 pounds and 50 percent would be the most effective salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2008-2009 marketing year. The Committee also considered various alternative levels of volume control for Native spearmint oil. After considerable discussion the Committee unanimously determined that 1,184,748 pounds and 53 percent would be the most effective salable quantity and allotment percentage, respectively, for the 2008-2009 marketing year. As noted earlier, the Committee's recommendation to establish salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of spearmint oil was made after careful consideration of all available information, including:
(1)The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers;
(2)the estimated demand for each class of oil;
(3)the prospective production of each class of oil;
(4)the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year;
(5)the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage;
(6)producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and
(7)general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Based on its review, the Committee believes that the salable quantity and allotment percentage levels recommended would achieve the objectives sought. Without any regulations in effect, the Committee believes the industry would return to the pronounced cyclical price patterns that occurred prior to the order, and that prices in 2008-2009 would decline substantially below current levels. As stated earlier, the Committee believes that the order has contributed extensively to the stabilization of producer prices, which prior to 1980 experienced wide fluctuations from year-to-year. National Agricultural Statistics Service records show that the average price paid for both classes of spearmint oil ranged from $4.00 per pound to $11.10 per pound during the period between 1968 and 1980. Prices have been consistently more stable since the marketing order's inception in 1980, with an average price for the period from 1980 to 2006 of $12.69 per pound for Scotch spearmint oil and $9.89 per pound for Native spearmint oil. According to the Committee, the recommended salable quantities and allotment percentages are expected to achieve the goals of market and price stability. As previously stated, annual salable quantities and allotment percentages have been issued for both classes of spearmint oil since the order's inception. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements have remained the same for each year of regulation. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. Accordingly, this rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers and handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 17, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons the opportunity to respond to this proposal. This comment period is deemed appropriate so a final determination might be made prior to June 1, 2008, the beginning of the 2008-2009 marketing year. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985 Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 985—MARKETING ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 985 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. A new § 985.227 is added to read as follows: [Note: This section will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.] § 985.227 Salable quantities and allotment percentages—2008-2009 marketing year. The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 2008, shall be as follows:
(a)Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable quantity of 993,067 pounds and an allotment percentage of 50 percent.
(b)Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,184,748 pounds and an allotment percentage of 53 percent. Dated: February 12, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-2922 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 35 RIN 3150-AI26 [NRC-2008-0071] Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Amendments/Medical Event Definitions AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is making available preliminary draft rule language to amend its regulations concerning medical use of byproduct material. The goal of this rulemaking is to better define medical events arising from permanent implant brachytherapy procedures. The proposed amendments will change the criteria for defining a medical event for permanent implant brachytherapy from dose based to activity based, will add a requirement to report as a medical event any administration requiring a written directive if a written directive was not prepared, and will make certain administrative and clarification changes. The availability of the preliminary draft rule language is intended to inform stakeholders of the current status of the NRC's activities and solicit public comments on the information at this time. Comments may be provided as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. The NRC may post updates periodically under Docket # NRC-2008-0071 on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* that may be of interest to stakeholders. DATES: Submit comments by February 26, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Please include the following number RIN 3150-AI26 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC's Web site in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and on *regulations.gov.* Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, etc., will not be removed from your submission. You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. *Electronically:* Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (Docket # NRC-2008-0071) and follow instructions for submitting comments. Address questions about this docket to Carol Gallagher 301-415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at 301-415-1966. *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 301-415-1966). *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward M. Lohr, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-0253, e-mail, *eml1@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preliminary draft rule language can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* by searching for Docket # NRC-2008-0071 as well as in ADAMS (ML080350090). The goal of this rulemaking is to better define medical events arising from permanent implant brachytherapy procedures. The proposed amendments will change the criteria for defining a medical event for permanent implant brachytherapy from dose based to activity based, will add a requirement to report as a medical event any administration requiring a written directive if a written directive was not prepared, and will make certain administrative and clarification changes. The NRC is making a preliminary version of the draft proposed rule language available to inform stakeholders of the current status of this proposed rulemaking. This preliminary draft rule language may be subject to significant revisions during the rulemaking process. NRC is inviting stakeholders to comment on the draft revisions. The NRC may post updates to the draft proposed rule language on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Stakeholders will also have an opportunity to comment on the rule language when it is published as a proposed rule. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of February, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E8-2777 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0175; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0175, Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued DCA/750XL/2, dated September 30, 2004 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot heat sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan circuit fuse. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $181 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,107, or $301 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Pacific Aerospace Limited:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0175, Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by March 17, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 107, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 31: Instruments. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot heat sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan circuit. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, do the following actions following Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004:
(1)For airplanes only authorized to operate under visual flight rules
(VFR)flight:
(i)Add a ten-amp circuit breaker supplying the pitot heat system to the left hand
(LH)Switch Panel;
(ii)Replace the switching circuit breaker used as the pitot heat selector with a switch; and
(iii)Add a three-amp fuse at the power bus at the supply to the avionics cooling fan connection.
(2)For airplanes with serial numbers 101 through 107 that have been modified to operate under instrument flight rules
(IFR)flight, contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited at Pacific Aerospace Limited, Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton, New Zealand, telephone: +(64) 7-843-6144, fax: +(64) 7-843-6134, email: *pacific@aerospace.co.nz.* , for FAA-approved procedures to comply with this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA- approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/750XL/2, dated September 30, 2004; and Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 7, 2008. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-2831 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-228-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the escape slides for the forward and aft entry and service doors to determine the part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girt, and modification of the escape slide assemblies. This proposed AD also would require concurrent modification of the escape slide latch assembly; concurrent inspection of the escape slides to determine the part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girts, and replacement of the trigger housing on the regulator valve with improved trigger housing if necessary; and concurrent replacement of the rod in the pilot valve regulator with a new improved rod; as applicable. This proposed AD results from reports that certain escape slides did not automatically inflate when deployed or after the manual inflation cable was pulled. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of an escape slide to inflate when deployed, which could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert K. Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6457, fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-228-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports indicating that Goodrich 5A3307 series escape slides did not automatically inflate when deployed on Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. On some of these airplanes, the escape slides did not inflate even after the manual inflation cable was pulled and the firing cable was pulled out of the valve regulator assembly. Investigation revealed that these escape slides did not inflate because the piston rod was incorrectly installed in the valve regulator assembly of the escape slide. The same valve regulator is also used on Goodrich 5A3086 and 5A3088 series escape slides. If the rod is installed upside down, the valve regulator assembly can be charged but the rod will prevent the regulator from activating when the firing cable is pulled. On other airplanes, the escape slides did not automatically inflate when deployed, but did inflate after the manual inflation cable was pulled. Investigation revealed that these escape slides did not automatically inflate because there was insufficient force to pull the inflation cable from the valve, due to the trigger housing cover deflecting the inflation cable. The failure of an escape slide to inflate when deployed, if not corrected, could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. Other Related Rulemaking On July 13, 2001, we issued AD 2001-15-01, amendment 39-12335 (66 FR 38361, July 24, 2001), applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 and 737 airplanes; and Model 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-300 series airplanes. That AD requires modification of the latch assembly of the escape slides. For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, that AD also requires installation of a cover assembly on the trigger housing of the inflation cylinder on the escape slides. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of certain requirements of paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491, dated April 23, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the escape slides to determine the Goodrich part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girts, and for modifying the escape slide assemblies. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-338, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2004, as an additional source of service information for modifying the escape slide assemblies. The modification includes replacing the regulator piston plug in the vespel piston with a new piston plug, installing a new ensolite pad on the valise, and replacing the trigger housing cover with an improved trigger housing cover. Concurrent Service Information Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 also specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of the following service bulletins: • Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, dated May 25, 2000, or Revision 1, dated April 18, 2002, for certain Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3307-1, P/N 5A3307-3, P/N 5A3086-3, or P/N 5A3088-3. The original issue of the service bulletin is required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01. This service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the escape slide latch assembly. • Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1475, dated November 26, 2002, for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3086-3 or P/N 5A3088-3. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1475 describes procedures for inspecting the four escape slides to determine the part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girts, and replacing the trigger housing on the regulator valve with improved trigger housing if Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-302 is not stenciled on the girt. For certain airplanes, the Boeing service bulletin also specifies that a records review may be done in lieu of the inspection to determine the part number. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1475 refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-336, dated June 17, 2002, as an additional source of service information for replacing the trigger housing on the regulator valve with new improved trigger housing. • Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-308, dated January 21, 2000, for any escape slide having P/N 5A3307-1, P/N 5A3086-3, or P/N 5A3088-3; or P/N 5A3307-3 and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-309 stenciled on the girt. Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-308 describes procedures for replacing the rod in the pilot valve regulator with a new improved rod. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Concurrent Service Information Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 identifies Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403, dated May 4, 2000, or Revision 1, dated November 29, 2001; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-309, dated October 29, 1999; as concurrent requirements, this proposed AD would not require accomplishment of those service bulletins. (Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 incorrectly dates the original issue of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403 as November 29, 2001.) Instead, this proposed AD would require installing an improved trigger housing cover in accordance with Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-338. Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-338 incorporates a larger escape slide valise pad that provides the same shielding function as the trigger housing modification specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403 and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-309. However, some operators might have previously incorporated Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403 and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-309 on certain Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes delivered with an escape slide having P/N 5A3307-1, as required by AD 2001-15-01. For these airplanes, this proposed AD would further require replacing the rod in the pilot valve regulator with a new improved rod in accordance with Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-308. Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 identifies Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-302, dated November 13, 1998, or Revision 1, dated February 19, 2001, as a concurrent requirement, this proposed AD would not require accomplishment of that service bulletin. However, some operators might have previously accomplished the actions specified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-302. If Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-302 has been previously accomplished on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3086-3 or P/N 5A3088-3, the trigger housing replacement specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1475 and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-336 would not need to be accomplished. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 480 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed inspection. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $38,400 or $80 per product. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work-hour, for U.S. operators to comply with the proposed concurrent actions, if applicable. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Concurrent actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404 2 $1,424 $1,584 Concurrent actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1475 3 1,740 1,980 Concurrent actions specified in Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-308 3 516 756 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-228-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by March 31, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491, dated April 23, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports that certain escape slides did not inflate when deployed or after the manual inflation cable was pulled. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of an escape slide to inflate when deployed, which could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspection and Modification
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the escape slides for the forward and aft entry and service doors to determine the Goodrich part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girts, and modify the escape slide assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491, dated April 23, 2007. Note 1: Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1491 refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-338, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2004, as an additional source of service information for modifying the escape slide assemblies. Concurrent Requirements
(g)Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1)For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, dated May 25, 2000, equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3307-1, P/N 5A3307-3, P/N 5A3086-3, or P/N 5A3088-3: Modify the escape slide latch assembly in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, dated May 25, 2000, as required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2002.
(2)For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3086-3 or P/N 5A3088-3: Inspect the four escape slides to determine the part number and service bulletin number stenciled on the escape slide girts, and replace the trigger housing on the regulator valve with improved trigger housing if Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-302 is not stenciled on the girt, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1475, dated November 26, 2002. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in the service bulletin, a records review may be done in lieu of the inspection to determine the part number. Note 2: Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1475 refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3086/5A3088-25-336, dated June 17, 2002, as an additional source of service information for replacing the trigger housing on the regulator valve with new improved trigger housing.
(3)For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes equipped with any escape slide having P/N 5A3307-1, P/N 5A3086-3, or P/N 5A3088-3; or P/N 5A3307-3 and Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3307-25-309 stenciled on the girt: Replace the rod in the pilot valve regulator with a new improved rod in accordance with Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-308, dated January 21, 2000. Terminating Action for AD 2001-15-01
(h)For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403, dated May 4, 2000: Accomplishing the replacement of the regulator piston plug in the vespel piston with a new piston plug, installation of a new insolate pad on the valise, and removal of the trigger housing cover, in accordance with Goodrich Service Bulletin 25-338, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2004, terminates the modification specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403, dated May 4, 2000, as required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01. All other applicable actions required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01 must be fully complied with.
(i)For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes: Installation of a cover assembly on the trigger housing of the inflation cylinder on the escape slides in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2001, terminates the corresponding action required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01. All other applicable actions required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01 must be fully complied with.
(j)For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes: Modification of the escape slide latch assembly in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2002, terminates the corresponding action required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01. All other applicable actions required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-15-01 must be fully complied with. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Robert K. Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6457, fax
(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-2887 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 210, 229, 231 and 241 [Release Nos. 33-8870A; 34-56945A; File No. S7-29-07] RIN 3235-AK00 Concept Release on Possible Revisions to the Disclosure Requirements Relating to Oil and Gas Reserves AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Correction to concept release. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the concept release to obtain information about the extent and nature of the public's interest in revising oil and gas reserves disclosure requirements which exist in their current form in Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which was published on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71610). DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mellissa Campbell Duru, Attorney-Advisor at
(202)551-3740, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The concept release that is the subject of these corrections relate to possible revisions to the disclosure requirements relating to oil and gas reserves. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication on December 18, 2007, of the Concept Release which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-24384 beginning on page 71610 is corrected as follows: 1. On page 71610 in the first column, 8th line from the bottom, “S7-XX-07” is corrected to read “S7-29-07”. 2. On page 71610 in the second column, 5th line from the top, “S7-XX-07” is corrected to read “S7-29-07”. Dated: February 11, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2854 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 19 CFR Parts 201 and 210 Rules of General Application and Adjudication and Enforcement AGENCY: International Trade Commission. ACTION: Extension of time to comment on the proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposed to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning rules of general application, adjudication, and enforcement and published a notice of its proposal on December 20, 2007. 72 FR 72280 (Dec. 20, 2007). The Commission required written comments to be filed by 5:15 p.m. within 60 days after publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Two entities have requested six week extensions of time to file their written comments. The Commission has determined to extend the deadline by six weeks. DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by 5:15 p.m. on March 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-022, by any of the following methods: — *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. — *Agency Web Site: http://www.usitc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Web site at *http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm* . — *E-mail: james.worth@usitc.gov.* Include docket number MISC-022 in the subject line of the message. — *Mail:* For paper submission. U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. — *Hand Delivery/Courier:* U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. From the hours of 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number (MISC-022) or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.usitc.gov,* including any personal information provided. For paper copies, a signed original and 14 copies of each set of comments, along with a cover letter stating the nature of the commenter's interest in the proposed rulemaking, should be submitted to Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.usitc.gov* and/or the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Worth, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3065. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure are necessary to make certain technical corrections, to clarify certain provisions, to harmonize different parts of the Commission's rules, and to address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to facilitate compliance with the Commission's Rules and improve the administration of agency proceedings. The Commission encourages members of the public to comment, in addition to any other comments they wish to make on the proposed amendments, on whether the proposed amendments are in language that is sufficiently clear for users to understand. The Commission required written comments to be filed by 5:15 p.m. within 60 days after publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. On January 25, 2008, Michael Doane, President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (“ITCTLA”), submitted a letter to the Commission requesting a six week extension of time for filing comments to the proposed amendments to the rules. On January 26, 2008, Michael Kirk, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, also submitted a letter to the Commission requesting a six week extension of time for filing comments to the proposed amendments to the rules. The Commission has determined to extend the deadline by six weeks to March 31, 2008. If the Commission decides to proceed with this rulemaking after reviewing the comments filed in response to this notice, the proposed rule revisions will be promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), and will be codified in 19 CFR parts 201 and 210. Background Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to update certain outdated provisions and improve other provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission proposes amendments to its rules covering investigations under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in order to increase the efficiency of its section 337 investigations. This rulemaking effort began in 2003 when the ITCTLA submitted a report to the Commission which suggested several rule changes that it believed would make the Commission rules more effective. In the course of considering the ITCTLA proposals, the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations also suggested various rule changes. The Commission invites the public to comment on all of these proposed rules amendments. In any comments, please consider addressing whether the proposed amendments are in language that is clear and easy to understand. In addition, in any comments, please consider addressing how the proposed rules amendments could be improved, and/or offering specific constructive alternatives where appropriate. Consistent with its ordinary practice, the Commission issued these proposed amendments in accordance with the rulemaking procedure in section 553 of the APA. This procedure entails the following steps:
(1)Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking;
(2)solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments;
(3)Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and
(4)publication of final amendments at least thirty days prior to their effective date. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 12, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-2871 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0641; A-1-FRL-8527-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Massachusetts. The SIP revision consists of technical revisions to Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.38, “Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District.” The amendments better define the emissions monitoring techniques for various types of tunnel ventilation systems, and provide flexibility in emission monitoring requirements. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0641 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0641,” Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1668, fax number
(617)918-0668, e-mail *cooke.donald@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 1, 2008. Ira W. Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E8-2746 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 070718364-7908-02] RIN 0648-AV19 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations implementing Amendment 25 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(FMP)and a provision of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Coast Guard Act). These proposed regulations would amend the Crab Rationalization Program. Amendment 25 to the FMP satisfies the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to amend the FMP to authorize conversion of catcher vessel owner quota shares and processor quota shares to newly created converted catcher processor owner quota shares. The Secretary approved Amendment 25 on April 12, 2007. The Coast Guard Act mandates the Secretary to issue processing quota share to Blue Dutch, LLC, under specific conditions. This proposed action is necessary to implement Amendment 25 and the Coast Guard Act. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coast Guard Act, the FMP, and other applicable law. DATES: Comments must be received no later than March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV19”, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Fax:
(907)586-7557. • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9 th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file
(pdf)formats only. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, and by email to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of Amendment 25 and the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR)for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228, *glenn.merrill@noaa.gov* or Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228, *gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Crab Rationalization Program. A final rule implementing these amendments was published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Crab Rationalization Program (Program) To implement the Program in 2005, NMFS initially issued processing quota shares (PQS), catcher vessel owner quota share (CVO QS), and catcher processor owner quota share (CPO QS) to eligible applicants. NMFS issued PQS and QS for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI. In 2006, NMFS initially issued Bristol Bay red king crab ( *Paralithodes camtschaticus* ) and snow crab ( *Chionoecetes opilio* ) PQS to the Blue Dutch, LLC, under the requirements of section 417 of the Coast Guard Act. CVO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege that authorizes the holder to receive an annual allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the total allowable catch
(TAC)from a fishery. The annual allocations of TACs, in pounds, are referred to as individual fishing quotas (IFQs). PQS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a specific portion of the annual TAC from a fishery. An annual allocation of PQS is referred to as individual processing quota
(IPQ)and expressed in pounds of crab. Harvesters holding CVO IFQ must deliver a portion of their IFQ to processors with a like amount of IPQ available. For most crab fisheries, CVO QS and PQS is designated for specific geographic regions. Crab harvested with regionally designated CVO QS is required to be delivered to a processor in the designated region. Likewise, a processor with regionally designated PQS is required to accept delivery of and process crab in the designated region. Two regional designations were created for the snow crab and Bristol Bay red king crab fisheries. The North Region consists of all areas in the Bering Sea north of 56°20′ N. latitude. The South Region is all other areas. The regional designation of CVO QS and PQS preserves the historic geographic distribution of landings in the fisheries. CPO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to harvest a percentage of the TAC and process that crab onboard. Under the Program, CPO QS does not have regional designations and is not required to be delivered to a processor holding available IFQ. Coast Guard Act On July 11, 2006, the President signed the Coast Guard Act which contained in section 417 a provision mandating the Secretary of Commerce to issue PQS for the Bristol Bay red king crab and the Bering Sea snow crab fisheries to Blue Dutch, LLC, under two specific conditions. First, NMFS must issue Blue Dutch PQS equal to 0.75 percent of the total number of PQS units. NMFS issued an initial administrative determination on July 31, 2006, to issue Blue Dutch 3,015,229 units of Bristol Bay red king crab PQS and 7,516,253 units of snow crab PQS. NMFS assigned a regional designation to the PQS units issued to Blue Dutch according to the procedures established in the regulations at 50 CFR 680.40(b)(2)(iv). Second, NMFS must issue IPQ for that PQS whenever the TAC for that fishery is more than 2 percent higher than the most recent TAC in effect for that fishery prior to September 15, 2005. The TAC used for this calculation is the total TAC, which includes the CDQ allocation. Accordingly, NMFS determined that it will issue Bristol Bay red king crab IPQ to Blue Dutch when the TAC for that fishery is greater than 15,732,480 lb (7,136.1 mt). NMFS will issue snow crab IPQ to Blue Dutch when the TAC for that fishery is greater than 21,350,640 lb (9,684.5 mt). This proposed rule is necessary to specify in regulations the statutory thresholds for annually issuing IPQ to Blue Dutch to ensure the regulations implementing the Program conform to the Coast Guard Act. The proposed rule prohibits the transfer of the PQS units issued under the Coast Guard Act because the Act explicitly requires NMFS to issue the PQS to Blue Dutch. Amendment 25 On January 12, 2007, the President signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA, Public Law 109-479), which added a new requirement in section 122(a) for the Secretary of Commerce, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of that act, to amend the FMP to modify the Program to authorize conversion of North CVO QS and North PQS to newly created converted CPO QS. Amendment 25 to the FMP complies with the MSRA by amending the FMP to authorize an eligible entity and its commonly owned affiliates to combine North PQS and North CVO QS and exchange these shares for newly created converted CPO QS. While the MSRA does not specifically define which fisheries are subject to this provision, converted CPO QS would be created for only the snow crab and Bristol Bay red king crab fisheries, because these were the only fisheries for which the eligible entities were initially issued North PQS and North CVO QS, as specified in the MSRA. NMFS published the notice of availability for Amendment 25 on February 5, 2007 (72 FR 5255), with a public comment period that closed on April 6, 2007. NMFS received one public comment on Amendment 25. The commenter opposed Amendment 25 because she is quite concerned about the legislation. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 25 on April 12, 2007. This proposed rule is necessary to implement Amendment 25. This proposed rule would authorize two types of quota share conversions and define the entities eligible to make those conversions. First, an eligible entity holding PQS, along with its commonly owned affiliates, could combine its North CVO QS for Bristol Bay red king crab or snow crab with its North PQS for that fishery and exchange these shares for converted CPO QS on an annual basis. Entities could do this under the following two conditions:
(1)if NMFS initially issued the entity both CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its commonly owned affiliates, is less than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year; or
(2)if NMFS initially issued the entity CPO QS under the Program and PQS under the Coast Guard Act. An eligible entity would be limited to converting only the PQS that it, along with its commonly owned affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. Second, an eligible entity holding CVO QS, along with its commonly owned affiliates, could combine its North PQS for Bristol Bay red king crab or snow crab with its North CVO QS for that fishery and exchange these shares for converted CPO QS on an annual basis. The only entity that could do this would be an entity to which NMFS initially issued CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its commonly owned affiliates, is more than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year. This eligible entity would be limited to converting only the CVO QS that it, along with its commonly owned affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. According to the NMFS Official Record, three individual entities are eligible for these new provisions. Yardarm Knot, Inc., and Blue Dutch, LLC, would be eligible for the first type of conversion. Trident Seafoods, Inc., would be eligible for the second type of conversion. These entities would elect on an annual basis whether to receive converted CPO QS and the amount of North CVO QS and North PQS they wish to convert by completing the annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ permit and submitting that application along with the annual application for crab IFQ/IPQ permit by August 1 for that crab fishing year. Entities applying for a converted CPO QS permit and resulting CPO IFQ would be required to provide information on any person who is affiliated, as the term “affiliation” is defined at § 680.2, to that entity and indicate the amount of PQS and CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS. The proposed rule specifies a number of provisions for converted QS/IFQ to conform with the MSRA and the Program's implementing regulations. Converted CPO QS and the resulting CPO IFQ would not be transferable. This restriction on transfers is consistent with the MSRA eligibility standards that only entities that meet the specific requirements of the Act are eligible to receive converted CPO QS. However, CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS may be issued to a cooperative. The proposed rule specifies that
(1)eligible entities would receive one unit of North CPO QS in exchange for one unit of North CVO QS and 0.9 units of North PQS and
(2)the amount of IFQ derived from the converted CPO QS issued to each entity could not exceed one million pounds per fishery during any calendar year. Additionally, the proposed rule would implement the area of validity in section 122(a)(4) of the MSRA by requiring that any crab harvested under a CPO IFQ permit derived from converted CPO QS must be offloaded in the North Region, defined in the Program as the Bering Sea subarea north of 56°20′ N. latitude. Converting PQS and CVO QS to converted CPO QS would allow entities to harvest and process crab onboard a catcher processor. Conversion could reduce each eligible entity's operating costs associated with purchasing crab, processing crab on land or in a stationary floater processor, and complying with the Program's arbitration system. NMFS can not predict the annual amount of converted CPO QS that would be annually issued because the participants would annually elect to exercise this provision and need not request conversion of all CVO QS and PQS held. Sections 122(b) and
(c)of the MSRA include additional requirements for fees and off-loading for converted CPO QS; however, the statute does not require the Secretary of Commerce to implement these requirements and therefore they are not part of Amendment 25 and will not be implemented by Federal rulemaking. The MSRA requires the holder of converted CPO QS to pay a fee of five percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares to any local governmental entities in the North Region, if the PQS used to produce the converted CPO QS was originally derived from the processing activities that occurred in a community under the jurisdiction of those local governmental entities. The State of Alaska may collect from the holder of the converted CPO QS a fee of one percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares. Additionally, crab harvested with converted CPO QS shall be off-loaded in those communities receiving the local governmental entities fee revenue. Section 122(d) of the MSRA also provides that, as part of its periodic review of the Program, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may review the effects on communities in the North Region of allowing the conversion to CPO QS. Under this section, if the Council determines that Amendment 25 adversely affects the communities, the Council may recommend to the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary may approve, changes to the Program necessary to mitigate those adverse effects. Section 122(e) of the MSRA requires an additional FMP amendment and rule making to modify the use caps for processing North Region snow crab. Under this section, custom processing arrangements do not count against any use cap for the processing of snow crab in the North Region by a shore-based crab processor. NMFS issued an enforcement policy on January 19, 2007, that provides guidance to the industry on NMFS' enforcement and interpretation of this section, which is effective until superseded by future rulemaking. At its December meeting, the Council adopted Amendment 27 to the FMP that would implement this MSRA provision. NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule for Amendment 27 in the spring of 2008. Classification The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Social Impact Assessment was prepared for the Program that describes the management background, the purpose and need for the Program, the management alternatives, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts (see ADDRESSES ). With this proposed rule, NMFS is continuing to implement the Program. Department of Commerce Chief Counsel for Regulations has certified to the Small Business Administration, under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS finds that the proposed action is not likely to have the potential to have a significant economic impact on any small entities participating in these fisheries because no small entities will be directly regulated by this action. Section 122(a) of the MSRA defines the entities eligible to elect to exercise this provision. According to the NMFS Official Record, three individual entities are eligible under the MSRA for these new provisions; Yardarm Knot, Inc., Blue Dutch, LLC, and Trident Seafoods Corporation. These three entities do not qualify as small entities according to the Small Business Administration criteria. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A business involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood products is a small business if it meets the $4 million criterion for fish harvesting operations. Yardarm Knot and its affiliates own two large catcher processors, the Highland Light and the Westward Wind. The Highland Light primarily targets pollock, and the Westward Wind participates in the Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea snow crab and Tanner crab fisheries. In addition, Yardarm Knot operates a salmon processing plant in Naknek that employs up to 450 people during the peak season. Yardarm Knot substantially exceeds the 500 employee threshold applicable to shore-based processing entities. Blue Dutch operates vessels in the crab and groundfish fisheries in the North Pacific. Blue North Fisheries (an affiliate of Blue Dutch) has a fleet of seven catcher processors, ranging in size from 124 ft to 180 ft. The fleet primarily participates in the hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery in the Bering Sea. Since Blue Dutch operates no shore-based facilities, it is not regulated by this action as a shore-based facility. Instead it is subject to regulation as an at-sea operation and as a catcher vessel operation. Catch by Blue Dutch and its affiliates substantially exceeds the $4.0 million annual gross receipts threshold applicable to at-sea operations and catcher vessels. Trident Seafoods operates 3 factory trawlers that primarily target pollock in the Bering Sea. Trident also owns seven at-sea processors that produce salmon, herring, crab, and groundfish products, eleven catcher vessels that target pollock and Pacific cod, and five catcher vessels that primarily catch Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea snow crab, and Tanner crab ( *C. bairdi* ). Trident operates large shore-side processing plants in Akutan, St. Paul, Kodiak, and Sand Point, Alaska, in addition to smaller plants in other Alaska communities. The Akutan facility is the largest seafood processing plant in North America, and processes pollock, crab, and halibut. The St. Paul plant primarily processes crab, and the Sand Point and Kodiak facilities process Pacific cod, sablefish, crab, halibut, pollock, salmon, and other groundfish. Trident's corporate offices are located in Seattle, Washington, and the company also operates fish processing facilities in Seattle, Anacortes, and Bellingham, Washington; Motley, Minnesota; and Newport, Oregon. Trident substantially exceeds the 500 employee threshold criterion applicable to shore-based processors. A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The Regulatory Impact Review describes the potential size, distribution, and magnitude of the economic impacts that this action may be expected to have. Copies of the RIR prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Collection-of-Information This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for annual application for converted CPO QS and CPO IFQ permit is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Public comment is sought regarding whether
(1)this proposed collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate;
(2)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(3)ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection-of-information to the National Marine Fisheries Service (see ADDRESSES ), and e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to
(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: February 11, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L 109-479. 2. In § 680.2, add the definition of “Converted CPO QS” in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 680.2 Definitions. *Converted CPO QS* means CPO QS for the BBR and BSS crab QS fisheries that is issued to the entities defined in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) based on the procedures established in § 680.40(c)(5). 3. In § 680.4, revise paragraph (b)(1) and add paragraphs (b)(3) and
(n)to read as follows: § 680.4 Permits.
(b)* * *
(1)Crab QS is issued by the Regional Administrator to persons who qualify for an initial allocation under § 680.40 or receive QS by transfer under § 680.41. Once issued, a crab QS permit is valid until modified under paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section, or by transfer under § 680.41; or until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to § 679.43 of this chapter or under 15 CFR part 904. To qualify for a crab QS permit, the applicant must be a U.S. citizen.
(3)A converted CPO QS permit is valid until the end of the crab fishing year for which the permit is issued.
(n)*Contents of annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ permit.* (1)(i) A complete application must be received by NMFS no later than August 1 of the crab fishing year for which a person or crab harvesting cooperative is applying to receive converted CPO QS and the IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS. If a complete application is not received by NMFS by this date, that person or crab harvesting cooperative will not receive converted CPO QS and the IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS for that crab fishing year.
(ii)To receive converted CPO QS/IFQ this application must be accompanied by a timely and complete application for crab IFQ/IPQ described at paragraph
(f)of this section or a timely and complete application for a crab harvesting cooperative IFQ permit described at paragraph
(m)of this section.
(2)For the application to be considered complete, all fees required by NMFS must be paid, and any EDR required under § 680.6 must be submitted to the DCA. In addition, the applicant must include the following information:.
(i)*Entity identification.* Indicate the entity (Entity A, B, or C) described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii) through (c)(5)(iv) for which you are applying to receive converted CPO QS.
(ii)*Applicant information.* Enter applicant's name and NMFS Person ID; applicant's permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address the applicant wishes to use; and applicant's business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address.
(A)For Entity A or B. ( *1* ) Identify the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS; and ( *2* ) Identify the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to you by NMFS with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(B)For Entity C. ( *1* ) Identify the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to you by NMFS with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS; and ( *2* ) Identify the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(iii)*Affiliate information for Entities A and B.*
(A)For Entities A and B described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(iii), indicate the permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address; business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of any person who is affiliated with you based on information provided in an annual application for IFQ/IPQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator for that crab fishing year;
(B)Indicate the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to that person with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(C)Indicate the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation held by that person for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(iv)*Affiliate information for Entity C.*
(A)For Entity C described in § 680.40(c)(5)(iv), indicate the permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address; business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of any person who is affiliated with you based on information provided in an annual application for IFQ/IPQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator for that crab fishing year;
(B)Indicate the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(C)Indicate the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery issued to that person with a north region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(v)*Certification of applicant and affiliates.* The applicant and any persons who are affiliated with the applicant and named on the application must sign and date the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. If the application is completed by an authorized representative, proof of authorization must accompany the application. 4. In § 680.7, add paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows: § 680.7 Prohibitions.
(c)* * *
(6)For any person who is not an entity defined in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) to:
(i)Hold converted CPO QS.
(ii)Use the CPO IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS outside of a crab harvesting cooperative. 5. In § 680.40, add paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), (e)(3), and (j)(4) to read as follows: § 680.40 Quota Share (QS), Processor QS (PQS), Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), and Individual Processor Quota
(IPQ)issuance.
(c)* * *
(5)*Issuance of converted CPO QS.*
(i)For each crab fishing year, the Regional Administrator may issue converted CPO QS for the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a north region designation to an entity described in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) of this section if NMFS has approved an application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year.
(ii)Entity A is comprised only of Yardarm Knot, Inc. (NMFS ID # 675).
(iii)Entity B is comprised only of Blue Dutch, LLC (NMFS ID # 3163).
(iv)Entity C is comprised only of Trident Seafoods, Inc. (NMFS ID # 8184).
(v)NMFS will issue Entity A, B, or C described in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) through (c)(5)(iv) of this section one unit of converted CPO for each unit of CVO QS and 0.9 units of PQS indicated in an approved application for converted CPO QS/IFQ.
(vi)For each crab fishing year, the Regional Administrator will not issue CPO QS for the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery:
(A)To Entity A described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of PQS units with a north region designation initially issued by NMFS to Yardarm Knot, Inc. (NMFS ID # 675), and any affiliates of Yardarm Knot Inc. as listed on an annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year;
(B)To Entity B described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of PQS units with a north region designation initially issued by NMFS to Blue Dutch, LLC, (NMFS ID # 3163) under paragraph (e)(3) of this section and any affiliates of Blue Dutch, LLC, as listed on an annual application for annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year; and
(C)To Entity C described in paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of CVO QS units with a north region designation initially issued by NMFS to Trident Seafoods, Inc., (NMFS ID # 8184) and any affiliates of Trident Seafoods Inc. as listed on an annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year;
(vii)CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS may be issued to a crab harvesting cooperative only if the entity described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) of this section holding the converted CPO QS is a member of that crab harvesting cooperative.
(6)*Offloading requirements for CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS.* Any crab harvested under a CPO IFQ permit derived from converted CPO QS must be offloaded in the Bering Sea subarea north of 56°20′ N. lat.
(e)* * *
(3)*PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC.*
(i)Pursuant to Public Law 109-241, NMFS issued 3,015,229 units of PQS for the BBR crab QS fishery and 7,516,253 units of PQS for the BSS crab QS fishery.
(ii)PQS units issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section were assigned a regional designation according to the procedures established in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii)PQS units issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section may not be transferred to any other person.
(j)* * *
(4)*IPQ issued to Blue Dutch, LLC* —(i) *BBR IPQ.* For each crab fishing year that the total allowable catch for BBR CR crab is greater than 15,732,480 lb (7,136.2 mt), NMFS will issue IPQ for the 3,015,229 units of PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, pursuant to Public Law 109-241.
(ii)*BSS PQS.* For each crab fishing year that the total allowable catch for BSS CR crab is greater than 21,350,640 lb (9,684.6 mt), NMFS will issue IPQ for the 7,516,253 units of PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, pursuant to Public Law 109-241. 6. In § 680.41: a. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) through (c)(1)(vi) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) through (c)(1)(viii), respectively. b. New paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(1)(v) are added. c. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) is revised. The additions and revision read as follows: § 680.41 Transfer of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Quota type Eligible person Eligibility requirements
(i)PQS not issued under § 680.40(e)(3)(i) Any person None. * * * * * * *
(iv)Converted CPO QS N/A Converted CPO QS may not be transferred.
(v)CPO IFQ derived from Converted CPO QS N/A CPO IFQ derived from Converted CPO may not be transferred. * * * * * * * 7. In § 680.42, paragraph (a)(5) is revised, and paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows: § 680.42 Limitations on use of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.
(a)* * *
(5)IFQ that is used by a crab harvesting cooperative is not subject to the use caps in this paragraph
(a)except as provided for in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
(7)In a calendar year, an entity as described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv), may not use more than 1,000,000 lb (453.6 mt) of IFQ derived from converted CPO QS in the BBR or BSS crab QS fisheries. [FR Doc. E8-2895 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 32 Friday, February 15, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0001] Notice of Availability of a Risk Analysis for the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Status of the Republic of South Africa AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that a risk analysis has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service concerning the foot-and-mouth disease status of the Republic of South Africa and the related disease risks associated with importing animals and animal products into the United States from the Republic of South Africa. This risk analysis will be used as a basis for determining whether to relieve certain prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of ruminants and swine and the fresh meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine into the United States from the Republic of South Africa. We are making this risk analysis available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before April 15, 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-2008-0001* 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-2008-0001, 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-2008-0001. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the risk analysis 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. Javier Vargas, Animal Scientist, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-0756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are considered free of rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.11 lists regions of the world considered free of rinderpest and FMD but from which the importation of meat and other animal products into the United States is subject to additional restrictions because of those regions' proximity to or trading relationships with FMD-affected regions. In an interim rule effective November 6, 2000, and published in the **Federal Register** on February 9, 2001 (66 FR 9641-9643, Docket No. 00-122-1), we amended the regulations by removing the Republic of South Africa from the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD. We also removed the Republic of South Africa from the list of regions in § 94.11 that are considered to be free of these diseases, but are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. These actions were necessary because FMD had been confirmed in two provinces in the Republic of South Africa. The effect of the interim rule was to prohibit or restrict the importation of ruminants and swine and the fresh meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine into the United States from the Republic of South Africa. Although we removed the Republic of South Africa from the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD, we recognized that the Republic of South Africa's National Department of Agriculture responded immediately to the detection of the disease by imposing restrictions on the movement of ruminants, swine, and ruminant and swine products from the affected areas and by initiating measures to eradicate the disease. We stated that we intended to reassess the situation in the region at a future date in accordance with Office International des Epizooties
(OIE)standards. We solicited comments concerning our interim rule ending April 10, 2001; we received no comments by that date. In this notice, we are announcing the availability for review and comment of a document entitled “Evaluation of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Status of the Republic of South Africa” (October 2007). This risk analysis assesses the FMD status of the Republic of South Africa and the related disease risks associated with importing animals and animal products into the United States from the Republic of South Africa. This risk analysis will be considered as part of our decisionmaking process regarding whether to relieve certain prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of ruminants and swine and the fresh meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine into the United States from the Republic of South Africa. The importation of live swine and certain swine products would continue to be restricted because the Republic of South Africa has not been evaluated by APHIS for African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease. We are making the risk analysis available for public comment for 60 days. The risk analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the risk analysis by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the risk analysis when requesting copies. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2912 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0024] Draft Guideline: Target Animal Safety for Veterinary Live and Inactivated Vaccines AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: The International Cooperation on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products
(VICH)has developed a draft guideline titled “Target Animal Safety for Veterinary Live and Inactivated Vaccines.” This draft guideline provides guidance for designing and executing studies to evaluate the safety of the final formulation of veterinary live and inactivated vaccines in animals. Because the draft guideline may have an effect on the requirements for vaccines that are regulated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, we are requesting comments on the scope of the guideline and its provisions so that we may include any relevant public input on the draft in the Agency's comments to the VICH Steering Committee. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 15, 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-2008-0024* 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-2008-0024, 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-2008-0024. *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: Dr. Albert P. Morgan, Center for Veterinary Biologics-Policy Evaluation and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8245. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Cooperation on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products
(VICH)is a unique project conducted under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health that brings together the regulatory authorities of the European Union, Japan, and the United States and representatives from the animal health industry in the three regions. The purpose of VICH is to harmonize technical requirements for veterinary products (both drugs and biologics). Regulatory authorities and industry experts from Australia and New Zealand participate in an observer capacity. The World Federation of the Animal Health Industry (COMISA, the Confederation Mondiale de L'Industrie de la Sante Animale) provides the secretarial and administrative support for VICH activities. The United States Government is represented in VICH by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The FDA provides expertise on veterinary drugs, while APHIS fills a corresponding role for veterinary biological products. As VICH members, APHIS and FDA participate in efforts to enhance harmonization and have expressed their commitment to seeking scientifically based, harmonized technical requirements for the development of veterinary drugs and biological products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce the differences in technical requirements for veterinary drugs and biologics among regulatory agencies in different countries. The draft guideline “Target Animal Safety for Veterinary Live and Inactivated Vaccines” (VICH Topic GL44) has been made available by the VICH Steering Committee for comments by interested parties. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for designing and executing studies to evaluate the safety of the final formulation of veterinary live and inactivated vaccines prior to approval for licensing/registration. Because the draft guideline applies to some veterinary vaccines regulated by APHIS under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act—particularly with regard to the safety of the dose of the vaccine on the health and welfare of the target animal—we are requesting comments on its provisions so that we may include any relevant public input on the draft in the Agency's comments to the VICH Steering Committee. The draft guideline reflects current APHIS thinking regarding designing and executing studies to assess the safety of the final formulation of live and inactivated veterinary vaccines in target animals. In accordance with the VICH process, once a final draft of the document has been approved, the guideline will be recommended for adoption by the regulatory bodies of the European Union, Japan, and the United States. As with all VICH documents, each final guideline will not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind APHIS or the public. Further, the VICH guidelines specifically provide for the use of alternative approaches if those approaches satisfy applicable regulatory requirements. Ultimately, APHIS intends to consider the VICH Steering Committee's final guideline for use by U.S. veterinary biologics licensees, permittees, and applicants. In addition, we may consider using the final guideline as the basis for proposed amendments to the regulations in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter E (Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Organisms and Vectors). Because we anticipate that applicable provisions of the final versions of “Target Animal Safety for Veterinary Live and Inactivated Vaccines” may be introduced into APHIS' veterinary biologics regulatory program in the future, we encourage your comments on the draft guideline. The draft guideline 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 draft guideline by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151 *et seq.* Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2913 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0018] Oregon State University; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Controlled Release of Genetically Engineered Populus Species and Hybrids AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposed controlled field release of genetically engineered (transgenic) clones of *Populus* species and hybrids. The purpose of this controlled field release is to examine the effects of the genetic constructs on the intended traits of reproductive sterility, reduced stature, reduced light response, and modified lignin content. After assessing the application, reviewing pertinent scientific information, and considering public comments, we have concluded that this field release will not present a plant pest risk, nor will it have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the environmental analysis that there are no significant impacts associated with this controlled field release, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that a finding of no significant impact is appropriate and therefore an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this field release. Effective Date: February 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may read the environmental assessment (EA), finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and decision notice, and our response to the comments we received on the EA in our reading room, which 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. The EA, FONSI and decision notice, and our response to public comments are also available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_25001r_ea.pdf* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-7324. To obtain copies of the environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck, Document Control Officer, at
(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On September 7, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 06-250-01r) from Oregon State University, in Corvallis, OR, for a controlled field release of genetically engineered *Populus alba* and *Populus* hybrids. A previous environmental assessment
(EA)was prepared for a subset of trees in this release under Permit 95-031-01R. Under that permit, trees engineered with sterility constructs were allowed to flower. Since the researcher intends to add more trees to the permit and allow these additional trees to flower, this new EA has been prepared which updates the previous EA. Permit application 06-250-01r describes 95 genetic constructs that can be categorized into reproductive sterility genes, genes affecting stature or light response, genes aimed to modify tree chemistry, and activation tagging mutants aimed at the development of “experimental domesticates.” These DNA sequences were introduced into *Populus* plants using disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* and also contain regulatory sequences from the plant pests cauliflower mosaic virus, tobacco mosaic virus, *Aspergillus nidulans* , and *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* . The subject *Populus* plants are considered regulated articles under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they were created using donor sequences from plant pests. On July 18, 2007, APHIS published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 39378-39379, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0018) announcing the availability of an EA for controlled release of genetically engineered *Populus* species and hybrids. During the 30-day comment period, which ended on August 17, 2007, APHIS received five comments. Comments opposing the granting of the permit were submitted by two individuals and a public interest group. Comments supporting the granting of the permit were submitted by the permit applicant and a limited liability company. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment period and has provided responses as an attachment to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 1 To view the notice, the EA, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0018* . Pursuant to the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 promulgated under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS has determined that this field release will not pose a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest. Additionally, based upon analysis described in the EA, APHIS has determined that the action proposed in Alternative C of the EA, to issue the permit with supplemental permit conditions, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. You may read the FONSI and decision notice on the Internet or in the APHIS reading room (see ADDRESSES above). Copies may also be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 4 [FR Doc. E8-2909 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0023] SemBioSys Genetics, Inc.; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Proposed Field Release of Genetically Engineered Safflower AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposed field release of a safflower line genetically engineered to express, within its seeds, human proinsulin fused to an *Arabidopsis* oleosin molecule. After our assessment of the application, review of pertinent scientific information, and consideration of comments provided by the public, we have concluded that this field release will not present a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest, nor will it have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for these field releases. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may read the environmental assessment (EA), finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and any comments we received 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. The EA, FONSI and decision notice, and responses to comments are available on the Internet at: *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_363103r_ea.pdf* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Patricia Beetham, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-0664. To obtain copies of the EA, FONSI and decision notice, and response to comments, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at
(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On December 18, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 06-363-103r) from SemBioSys Genetics, Inc. of West Sacramento, CA, for a field trial using a line of transgenic safflower. Permit application 06-363-103r describes a transgenic safflower ( *Carthamus tinctorius* ) cultivar that has been genetically engineered to express a fusion protein consisting of oleosin from *Arabidopsis thaliana* and human proinsulin exclusively within its seeds. Expression of this fusion protein is controlled by the phaseolin promoter and terminator sequences from *Phaseolus vulgaris* L. (common bean). Constructs were inserted into the recipient organisms via a disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* vector system. The seeds from these safflower plants will be ground up and used for the development of proinsulin purification technology and are not for commercial production. The subject safflower is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it has been genetically engineered utilizing a recombinant DNA technique that uses a vector derived from *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* . On June 22, 2007, APHIS published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 34426-34427, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0023) announcing the availability of an environmental assessment
(EA)for the proposed field release. During the 30-day comment period, APHIS received seven comments. There was one individual who was opposed to the use of biotechnology in food crops in general, but did not cite specific plant pest risk issues associated with this EA. Another commenter raised specific issues regarding the EA that mirrored the concerns of one of the five public interest groups that also sent in comments on the EA. In total, five public interest groups wrote letters in opposition to allowing the planting of this GE safflower. APHIS has responded to these comments in an attachment to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 1 To view the notice, the EA, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0023* . Pursuant to the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 promulgated under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS has determined that this field release will not pose a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest. Additionally, based upon analysis described in the EA, APHIS has determined that the action proposed in Alternative B of the EA (the preferred alternative), to issue the permit with supplemental permit conditions, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, APHIS has determined that a FONSI is appropriate for this proposed action. You may read the FONSI and decision notice on the Internet or in the APHIS reading room (see ADDRESSES above). Copies of the EA are also available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2910 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152] Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material; Record of Decision AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's record of decision for the supplement to the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement. ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of decision and the supplement to the final environmental impact statement on which the record of decision is based are available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 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. The record of decision may also be viewed on the APHIS Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/swpm.shtml* . Supporting and related materials, including the final and supplemental environmental impact statements, may also be viewed on the Internet by visiting *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0152.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238;
(301)734-6103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a record of decision based on its supplemental environmental impact statement
(SEIS)for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003 (FEIS). The SEIS and FEIS address Federal actions described in a final rule APHIS published in the **Federal Register** on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). The final rule amended the regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to adopt an international standard entitled “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade.” The FEIS was prepared with regard to that final rule in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and its implementing regulations. On October 24, 2006, APHIS published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 62240, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152) a notice of its intent to prepare the SEIS for the purpose of reevaluating and refining the estimates of methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS. On March 9, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 10749) a notice of the availability of the draft SEIS. Comments were accepted on the draft SEIS until June 25, 2007. In October 2007, APHIS published and distributed the final SEIS, which included discussion of the three comments received on the draft SEIS. On November 23, 2007, EPA published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 65732) a notice of the availability of the final SEIS. The NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10 require a 30-day waiting period between the time a final EIS is published and the time an agency makes a decision on an action covered by the EIS. APHIS did not receive any comments on the final SEIS by the time this waiting period ended on December 24, 2007. APHIS has reviewed the final SEIS and has concluded that it has fully analyzed the issues covered by the draft SEIS and the comments and suggestions submitted by commenters. APHIS has now prepared a record of decision on the adopted SEIS and is making that record available to the public. The Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is set out below in its entirety. Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement This Record of Decision
(ROD)has been developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of this ROD is to document APHIS' decision to adopt the September 16, 2004, final rule. Alternatives have been fully described and evaluated in the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS)and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This ROD is intended to:
(a)State the APHIS decision, present the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation;
(b)identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; and
(c)state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected alternative have been adopted (40 CFR 1505.2). National Environmental Policy Act On November 23, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)published in the **Federal Register** [72 FR 65732] a notice of availability of the final supplement to the environmental impact statement titled “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material.” The FEIS considered the environmental impacts from importation of wood packaging materials that could result from our adoption of the proposed rule. The SEIS reevaluates and refines the estimates of methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS. Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA in cases requiring an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of decision to express the agency determination from review of the EIS documentation. The NEPA implementing regulations require that a record of decision state what decision is being made; identify alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement process; specify the environmentally preferred alternative; discuss preferences based on relevant factors—economic and technical considerations, as well as national policy considerations, where applicable; and state how all of the factors discussed entered into the decision. In addition, the record of decision must indicate whether the ultimate decision has been designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm and, if not, why not. The Decision This decision described in the ROD addresses impacts from the final rule published by APHIS in the **Federal Register** on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). After a thorough reevaluation and refinement of the estimates of methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS and in the SEIS, APHIS has decided to continue to enforce the 2004 regulations that establish requirements stipulated in the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC)guidelines for importation of wood packaging material into the United States from other countries. This includes specific treatment requirements for either heat treatment or fumigation with methyl bromide of the wood packaging material. The quantitative range determined in the SEIS (822-2,351 MT) for the refined methyl bromide estimate is narrower than the range determined in the FEIS (384-4,630 MT), but that range is encompassed within the broader range presented in the FEIS. The limited changes in methyl bromide usage projected in the SEIS do not justify changes to the previous findings in the Record of Decision for the FEIS. Alternatives Considered in the Impact Statement Process The SEIS considers the same range of alternatives as the FEIS, but focuses on the potential impacts from treatments with methyl bromide. The range of alternatives includes
(1)No action, essentially maintaining the exemption from treatment requirements for importation of wood packaging material from foreign countries except as regulated under the September 18, 1998, interim rule that required treatment of wood packaging material from China (China interim rule, 63 FR 50099-50111, Docket No. 98-087-1),
(2)extension to all countries of the treatments in the China interim rule,
(3)adoption of the IPPC Guidelines,
(4)establishment of a comprehensive risk reduction program, and
(5)use of substitute (non-solid wood) packaging material only. Environmentally Preferable Alternative The environmentally preferable alternative would be to prohibit importation of wood packaging material, which would virtually eliminate all associated pest risks, as well as the need for quarantine treatments. This regulatory approach (alternative 5 above) would require all commodities that are to be imported to the United States to be transported with only substitute packaging material. Restriction to only substitute packaging materials is, however, more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve an adequate level of phytosanitary protection. For the foreseeable future, switching to substitute packaging materials would be costly or technically infeasible for many exporters, especially in developing countries. In addition, depending upon the type of substitute packing material, the environmental impacts from the manufacturing process for substitute packing material may increase overall impacts and other associated risks that are not major concerns with the present regulations. Preferences Among Alternatives The preference among the alternatives for the final rule was and remains to adopt the IPPC Guidelines (alternative 3 above). The preference for this alternative is based principally on the determination that it meets the Agency's obligations under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) (PPA), and other legislation such as NEPA and the Clean Air Act. The no action alternative (alternative 1 above) was rejected because, if left unchecked, pests introduced by imported wood packaging material have the potential to cause significant economic damage to the agricultural and forest resources of the United States. The alternative of extending the China interim rule to all wood packaging material worldwide (alternative 2 above) would not ensure long-term exclusion of some wood pests of quarantine concern, such as certain deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, and wilts. Additionally, adoption of the China interim rule requirements would result in the greatest additional use of methyl bromide of all the alternatives. The preferred alternative (alternative 3 above), adoption of the IPPC treatment standards for all importing countries, addresses the pest threats already covered by the China interim rule for beetle families such as Cerambycidae. In addition, it protects against nine other families of wood boring pests. The comprehensive risk reduction program (alternative 4 above) would consist of an array of mitigation methods (e.g., inspection, various heat treatments, various fumigants and other chemical treatments, irradiation, etc.) more extensive than that contained in either the China Interim Rule or the IPPC Guidelines. Many of the methods are in various phases of research and development and, therefore, do not provide an adequate basis for any final decisions about program implementation. Mandating the use of substitute packing material (alternative 5 above) requires use of materials that likely cost more than wood packaging material that is either heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide. The availability of these substitute packing materials is also an issue of concern for exporters in some developing countries. Please see the FEIS and SEIS for a full discussion of the reasons why adopting the IPPC standard was considered the preferred alternative. Factors in the Decision APHIS' mission is guided by the PPA, under which the detection, control, eradication, suppression, prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds have been determined by Congress to be necessary and appropriate for the protection of the agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States. The PPA also has been designed to facilitate exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural products and other commodities. In order to achieve these objectives, use of pesticides, including methyl bromide, has often been prescribed. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting substance that is strictly regulated under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act. While the goal of these authorities and agreements is to limit and ultimately phase out all ozone depleting substances, certain exemptions and exclusions are recognized, including an exemption for methyl bromide use for plant quarantine and preshipment purposes, including those purposes provided for in the final wood packaging material rule. The exemption is not unconditional, however. The United States, like other signatories to the Montreal Protocol, must review its national plant health regulations with a view to removing the requirement for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment applications where technically and economically feasible alternatives exist. This rule authorizes the use of heat treatment and methyl bromide fumigation to treat wood packaging material from other countries in order to meet the mandates of the PPA. In addition, the agency is working to promote environmental quality with ongoing work to identify and add to our regulations valid technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. Avoid or Minimize Environmental Harm The environment can be harmed by the use of methyl bromide which can delay the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. However, any lack of quarantine application of methyl bromide or heat treatment to wood packaging material poses potential adverse effects to agriculture and forested ecosystems among environmental components that could be devastating. Adequate enforcement of effective quarantine measures is required to protect the environment. By ensuring that quarantine use of methyl bromide remains limited, the Agency strikes a proper balance in its efforts to minimize environmental harm. APHIS is committed to monitoring these efforts through the NEPA process, and otherwise. Furthermore, where appropriate, measures such as gas recapture technology are encouraged by APHIS to minimize methyl bromide emissions and preclude harm to environmental quality. The prudent use of heat treatment and substitute packaging material by developed countries is expected to promote this regulatory approach in developing countries as their trade opportunities expand. Other Methyl bromide used in quarantine applications prescribed by the United States contributes just a small fraction of the total anthropogenic bromine released into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the Montreal Protocol is action-forcing in the sense that signatories must review their national plant health regulations with a view to finding alternatives to exempted uses of methyl bromide. The EPA has also cautioned that, regardless of the incremental contribution, it is important to recognize that any additional methyl bromide releases delay recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. A considerable amount of research and development of methyl bromide alternatives has been conducted within the USDA and continues today. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has also established a program to identify alternatives to ozone depleting substances, including methyl bromide, but EPA's listing of an acceptable alternative does not always adequately address its suitability for a particular use. We must not put agriculture and ecosystems at risk based upon unproven technology. APHIS is firmly committed to the objectives of the Montreal Protocol to reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance on methyl bromide for quarantine uses, consistent with its responsibilities to safeguard this country's agriculture and ecosystems. Achieving the objectives of both reducing (and ultimately eliminating) methyl bromide emissions as well as safeguarding agriculture and ecosystems in the most expeditious, cost- effective way possible, requires close coordination within the Federal Government of research, development, and testing efforts. APHIS is determined to cooperate actively with the Agricultural Research Service, EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and others involved in this effort to find effective alternatives to methyl bromide quarantine uses. The most recent effort by APHIS to reduce quarantine use of methyl bromide is through cooperative work with the IPPC on a draft International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM). This ISPM titled “Developing a Strategy to Reduce or Replace the Use of Methyl Bromide for Phytosanitary Purposes” has been under review since June 2007 by contracting parties to the IPPC. In a notice summarizing EPA comments on recent environmental impact statements and proposed regulations that was published in the **Federal Register** on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39807-39808), EPA expressed a lack of objections to the draft SEIS and APHIS' adoption of the IPPC Guidelines. The record of decision has been prepared in accordance with:
(1)NEPA,
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2908 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0029] Planet Biotechnology, Inc.; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Field Release To Produce Antibodies in Genetically Engineered Nicotiana Hybrids AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have prepared an environmental assessment for a proposed field release involving a *Nicotiana* hybrid line that has been genetically engineered to produce an antimicrobial antibody that binds to a bacterium ( *Streptococcus mutans* ) associated with tooth decay in humans. The purpose of this field release is to generate plant biomass from which the antibody will be extracted after harvest. The environmental assessment provides a basis for our conclusion that this field release will not present a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest and will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this field release. Effective Date: February 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may read the environmental assessment (EA), the finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and the comments we received 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. The EA, FONSI and decision notice, and responses to comments are available on the Internet at: *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_35403r_ea.pdf.* *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Margaret Jones, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-4880. To obtain copies of the EA, FONSI and decision notice, and responses to comments, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at
(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On December 21, 2005, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 05-354-03r) from Planet Biotechnology, Inc., of Hayward, CA, for a field trial using a transgenic *Nicotiana* hybrid. Permit application 05-354-03r describes a *Nicotiana* hybrid line ( *Nicotiana tabacum* X *Nicotiana glauca* ), designated as 06PBCarHG1, that produces a chimeric antimicrobial antibody (trade name CaroRx TM ) that binds to the bacterium ( *Streptococcus mutans* ) associated with tooth decay in humans. Expression of the gene sequence is controlled by the cauliflower mosaic virus
(CaMV)promoter and terminated by NOS from *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* and utilizes the selectable marker NPTII from *Escherichia coli* . Constructs were inserted into the recipient organisms via a disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* vector system. The antibodies generated from this planting will be extracted after harvest. The subject *Nicotiana* hybrid is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it has been genetically engineered using genetic sequences from plant pathogens. On June 13, 2007, APHIS published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 32607-32608, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0029) announcing the availability of an environmental assessment
(EA)for the proposed release of a transgenic *Nicotiana* hybrid line. During the 30-day comment period, APHIS received six comments. All six comments were opposed to APHIS' issuance of this permit and genetically engineered crops in general, but only one raised specific issues regarding the EA. APHIS has provided responses to these comments as an attachment to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 1 To view the notice, the EA, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0029* . Pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS has determined that this field release will not pose a risk of introducing or disseminating a plant pest. Additionally, based upon analysis described in the EA, APHIS has determined that the action proposed in Alternative B of the EA (the preferred alternative), to issue the permit with supplemental permit conditions, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, APHIS has determined that a FONSI is appropriate for this proposed action. You may read the FONSI and Decision Notice on the Internet or in the APHIS reading room (see ADDRESSES above). Copies may also be obtained from the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-2911 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Correction of the December 3, 2007, Federal Register Notice Announcing Opportunities for Designation in Georgia, Cedar Rapids (IA), and the Montana Areas, and Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Serving These Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice correction. SUMMARY: On December 3, 2007, GIPSA published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the designations of the following official agencies will end on June 30, 2008: Georgia Department of Agriculture (Georgia); Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc. (Mid-Iowa); and Montana Department of Agriculture (Montana). We asked persons interested in providing official services in the areas served by these agencies to submit an application for designation. The date that the applications and comments were due was incorrectly listed as January 2, 2009, instead of January 2, 2008. This notice provides interested persons a period of time to submit an application for designation or to comment on the official agencies named above. EFFECTIVE DATE: Applications and comments must be received by February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. Fax:
(202)690-2755, E-mail: *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GIPSA is publishing this notice to correct an error concerning the date to submit applications for designation or to comment on the current official agencies serving the Georgia, Cedar Rapids (IA), and Montana areas. Correction In the **Federal Register** issue of Monday, December 3, 2007, beginning on page 67885 (72 FR 67885) in make the following correction: 1. On page 67885, in the second column, delete the date January 2, 2009, and insert the date February 25, 2008. This action corrects the date, and allows an additional period for late applications and comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2949 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity To Comment on the Applicants for Maryland, New Jersey, and New York AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: GIPSA requests comments on the applicants for designation to provide official services in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. • Maryland Department of Agriculture (Maryland) applied for Maryland. • D. R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal) applied for New Jersey and New York. • Kankakee Grain Inspection, Inc. (Kankakee) applied for Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. • Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc. (Mid-Iowa) applied for Maryland, New Jersey and New York. DATES: Comments must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on these applicants. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. • Fax: Send by facsimile transmission to
(202)690-2755, attention: Karen Guagliardo. • E-mail: Send via electronic mail to *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . • Mail: Send hardcopy to Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments and reading any comments posted online. Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. In the December 5, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 68555), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York to submit an application for designation. There were four applicants for the Maryland, New Jersey, and New York areas open for designation: Kankakee, Mid-Iowa, and Schaal, all currently designated official agencies, and Maryland, a state organization not currently designated. Kankakee and Mid-Iowa applied for Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. Schaal applied for New Jersey and New York. Maryland applied for Maryland. GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address or at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the **Federal Register** , and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-2878 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Special Subsistence Permits and Harvest Logs for Pacific Halibut in Waters Off Alaska. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0512. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 325. *Number of Respondents:* 109. *Average Hours Per Response:* Permit applications, 10 minutes; harvest logs, 30 minutes; appeals, 4 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The special Pacific halibut permits and harvest logs were created to monitor Pacific halibut subsistence use for ceremony and education by Alaska Native tribes. These ceremonial and educational permits are issued in addition to the Pacific halibut subsistence registration described in OMB Control No. 0648-0460. *Affected Public:* State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2925 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Alaska Region BSAI Crab Permits. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0514. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 4,419. *Number of Respondents:* 1,800. *Average Hours Per Response:* The individual fishing quota or processor quota permit application and applications to become an Eligible Crab Community Organization: 2 hours, 30 minutes; registered crab receiver permit applications and fee submission forms, 30 minutes; hired master applications and federal crab vessel permit applications, 21 minutes; application for eligibility to receive crab shares by transfer and applications to transfer shares, 2 hours; Right of First Refusal contracts, 40 hours; Right of First Refusal waivers, 30 minutes; appeals of denied permits, 4 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)manages the crab fisheries in the waters off the coast of Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)Crab. The Crab Rationalization Program (Program) allocates Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. This collection-of-information addresses the permits, transfers, and cost recovery procedures for the Program. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2926 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Alaska Region Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Arbitration. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0516. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 743. *Number of Respondents:* 49. *Average Hours Per Response:* Market report and non-binding price formula report, 40 hours; annual arbitration organization report, 4 hours; arbitration organization miscellaneous reporting, 1 hour; establish price for arbitration negotiations, 45 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)manages the crab fisheries in the waters off the coast of Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab (FMP). The Crab Rationalization Program allocates Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. This collection-of-information addresses the Crab Rationalization Arbitration System. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2927 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* NMFS Alaska Region Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Economic Data Reports. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0518. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,478. *Number of Respondents:* 131. *Average Hours Per Response:* Annual catcher vessel report: 7 hours, 30 minutes; annual catcher/process report: 12 hours, 30 minutes; Annual stationary floating crab processor and shoreside processor reports, 10 hours; verification of data, 2 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)manages the crab fisheries in the waters off the coast of Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab (FMP). The Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) allocates Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. This collection-of-information addresses the CR Program's mandatory economic data collection reports (EDRs). The EDR data is used to assess the efficacy of the CR Program. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2928 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XF66 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, from 1 pm to 5 pm. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton, 5400 Seawall Blvd., Galveston, TX 77551; telephone:
(877)425-4753. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will convene the LEAP to review a generic amendment that would potentially allow offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico. The LEAP will also review Amendment 30B to the Reef Fish Fishery FMP that may establish additional restrictions on harvest of gag to maintain the rebuilding plan for this overfished stock and relax restriction on red grouper based on favorable analyses from the last stock assessment. Furthermore, the LEAP will review Draft Amendment 29 to the Reef Fish FMP that could establish a grouper/tilefish limited access privilege program
(LAPP)or individual fishing quota
(IFQ)program. Finally, the LEAP will receive a presentation on the potential for new marine protected areas (MPAs), and review a draft offshore aquaculture bill. The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NOAA General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at
(813)348-1630. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: February 12, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2886 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XF63 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Crab Committee will meet. DATES: The meeting will be held on February 28, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Leif Erikson Hall, 2247 NW 57th Street, Seattle, WA. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Stram, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PNCIAC will review the Bering Sea Aleutian Island king and Tanner Crab fisheries proposals to be acted upon at the March 3-9, 2008, Alaska Board of Fisheries meeting in Anchorage, AK; informational update and discussion of the NPFMC motion on Economic Data Report. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,
(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: February 12, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2876 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XF64 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a joint meeting of its Limited Access Privilege
(LAP)Program Workgroup and Committee, LAP Program Committee, a joint meeting of its Executive Committee and Finance Committee, Snapper Grouper Committee, Law Enforcement Advisory Panel, a joint meeting of its Habitat Committee and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, Spiny Lobster Committee, Shrimp Committee, Allocation Committee, Standard Operations, Policy and Procedures (SOPPs) Committee, Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)Selection Committee, and a meeting of the full Council. In addition, the Council will also hold a public comment period on Amendment 15B to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Redstone Consulting Group will provide a presentation on Limited Access Privilege Programs. DATES: The meetings will be held March 3-7, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel, 371 Riverview Drive, Jekyll Island, GA, 31527; telephone: (1-800) 535-9547 or
(912)635-2600, fax:
(912)635-2818. Copies of documents are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone:
(843)571-4366 or toll free at
(866)SAFMC-10; fax:
(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Dates 1. Joint LAP Program Workgroup and Committee Meeting: March 3, 2008, 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. The LAP Program Workgroup will provide a presentation to the LAP Program Committee on its final report and recommendations regarding a Limited Access Privilege Program for the commercial snapper grouper fishery in the Council's area of jurisdiction. 2. Redstone Consulting Group Presentation on LAP Programs: March 3, 2008, 6:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. The Redstone Consulting Group will provide a presentation on Limited Access Privilege Programs. 3. LAP Program Committee Meeting: March 4, 2008, 8 a.m. until 12 noon The LAP Program Committee will discuss LAP Programs, possible actions, timing issues, and provide directions to staff. 4. Joint Executive and Finance Committees Meeting: March 4, 2008, 1:30 p.m. until 2:30 p.m. The Executive and Finance Committees will meet to review the final Calendar Year
(CY)Council budget, the CY 2008-2010 FMP/Amendment/Framework timelines and modify as appropriate. The Committees will also receive a report on the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget and review and develop comments on H.R. Bill 4087 introduced by Congressman Jones from North Carolina. 5. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: March 4, 2008, 2:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. and March 5, 2008, 8 a.m. until 12 noon. The Snapper Grouper Committee will review public hearing comments on Amendment 15B to the Snapper Grouper FMP and modify the amendment as necessary. The Committee will then approve a recommendation that the Council submit Amendment 15B to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. Amendment 15B includes actions to modify current recreational sale allowances, define allocations for snowy grouper and red porgy, implement a plan to monitor and assess bycatch, implement measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take on sea turtles and small tooth sawfish, modify commercial permit renewal and transferability requirements, and update management reference points for golden tilefish. The Snapper Grouper Committee will also review Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper FMP, modify as appropriate, and approve the amendment for public hearings. Amendment 16 includes measures to end overfishing for gag grouper and vermilion snapper. The Committee will also review and discuss public scoping comments on Amendment 17 and provide directions to staff on options to be developed. Amendment 17 includes measures to respond to stock assessments for red snapper, greater amberjack, and mutton snapper, specify Annual Catch Limits for species in the snapper grouper fishery management unit currently undergoing overfishing, specify Accountability Measures as appropriate, extend the management unit through the Mid-Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction, and other items. The Committee will also receive a report on a pre-closure survey of proposed Marine Protected Areas, and an update on spearfishing issues at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 6. Law Enforcement Advisory Panel Meeting: March 4, 2008, 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. (Concurrent Sessions) The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel
(AP)will meet to discuss law enforcement's role in the development of a LAP Program. The AP will also discuss and comment on the following issues: snapper grouper amendment issues, spiny lobster issues and a future amendment, open water aquaculture, circle hook enforcement, special management areas, and the sale of recreationally caught fish. 7. Joint Habitat and Ecosystem-based Management Committee Meeting: March 5, 2008, 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. The Habitat and Ecosystem-based Management Committees will receive a presentation on Vessel Monitoring Systems and review input received from the Habitat, Coral, Deepwater Shrimp and Golden Crab Advisory Panels regarding the Fishery Ecosystem Plan
(FEP)Comprehensive Amendment, modify as needed, and approve the amendment for public hearings. The Committee will also review the FEP and approve for public hearing. In addition, the Committee will review and comment on proposed critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn corals, review and approve the Council's Energy Policy, receive a report on deepwater coral research, and discuss habitat issues as necessary. 8. Spiny Lobster Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. The Spiny Lobster Committee will review the scoping comments on the Generic Import Amendment to the Spiny Lobster FMP. The amendment addresses regulations regarding the importation of spiny lobster. The Committee will also review the status of changes to lobster regulations by the State of Florida, and plan a timeline for an amendment to address Annual Catch Limits for spiny lobster. 9. Shrimp Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 10 a.m. until 12 noon The Shrimp Committee will review scoping comments regarding Amendment 7 to the Shrimp FMP and provide directions to staff regarding options to be included in the amendment. Amendment 7 addresses landings requirements currently in place for South Atlantic endorsements for rock shrimp permits. 10. Allocation Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. The Allocation Committee will review public scoping comments and provide direction to staff regarding options to include in a Comprehensive Allocation Amendment. The amendment will address allocations between recreational and commercial sectors and possible allocations within those sectors. 11. SOPPs Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. The SOPPs Committee will receive an update on the status of Secretarial review of the Council's SOPPs and develop changes as necessary. 12. SSC Selection Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 4:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. (Closed Session) The SSC Selection Committee will meet in closed session and discuss any guidance from the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)affecting the SSC resulting from the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments. The Committee will also review applicants and provide recommendations for appointments as appropriate. 13. Personnel Committee Meeting: March 6, 2008, 5:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. (Closed Session) The Personnel Committee will meet in closed session to discuss personnel issues. 14. Council Session: March 7, 2008, 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. *From 8 a.m. - 8:15 a.m.* , the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the December 2007 meeting minutes. *From 8:15 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee, take public comment on Amendment 15B, and approve Amendment 15B for submission to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. The Council will also approve Amendment 16 for public hearings and take actions regarding Committee recommendations as appropriate. Note: The Council will take final public comment on Amendment 15B to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan at 8:15 a.m. on March 7, 2008. *From 8:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the LAP Program Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 9 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Joint Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management Committees. The Council will approve the FEP and the FEP Comprehensive Amendment for public hearings. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. *From 9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Joint Executive and Finance Committees and take action as appropriate. *From 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee take action as appropriate. *From 9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Shrimp Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Allocation Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the SOPPs Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 10:45 - 12:30 p.m.* , the Council will receive a report regarding the Council Coordinating Committee Meeting, receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, agency and liaison reports, review Experimental Fishing Permit applications as necessary, and discuss other business including upcoming meetings. Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ). Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305
(c)of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by February 29, 2008. Dated: February 12, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-2888 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Notice; Establishment of Energy Markets Advisory Committee The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has determined to establish a new advisory committee, the Energy Markets Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee is to conduct public meetings, to submit reports and recommendations to the Commission, and otherwise to serve as a vehicle for discussion and communication on matters of concern to exchanges, firms, end users and regulators regarding energy markets and their regulation by the Commission. The Energy Markets Advisory Committee will have no operational responsibilities. The Commission will seek to achieve a balanced membership by appointing representatives of a cross section of the groups and interests involved in or affected by the Commission's actions in the energy area. The charter of the Energy Markets Advisory Committee will become effective upon its filing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9(c). The Commission expects to file the charter promptly upon completion of the 15 day notice period specified by 41 CFR 102-3.65(b). The Commission has determined that establishment of the Energy Markets Advisory Committee is in the public interest and is necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in the most effective and responsive manner. Since the enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, there have been important new developments in energy markets that create a need for consideration of adjustments in current regulatory and legislative approaches to ensure that the Commission has the means to protect market integrity and competition, while preserving opportunities for innovation and increases in efficiency. This is particularly true in light of evidence that some of the newer energy markets that have emerged since the Modernization Act have taken on some of the characteristics and price-discovery functions of traditional futures markets. Moreover, there is every reason to expect that both the importance of markets for managing risks associated with the price and availability of energy and innovation in the structure and operation of such markets will continue to expand, raising new regulatory issues in the future. In these circumstances, an advisory committee focused on energy markets will significantly advance the Commission's ability to carry out its mission. Interested persons may obtain information by writing to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Issued in Washington, DC on February 11, 2008, by the Commission. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-2953 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on March 11-12, 2008 is to review new start and continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1 M. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board. DATES: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: SERDP Program Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharee Malcolm, SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at
(703)696-2119. Dated: February 8, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 08-677 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
27 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 300.62
  • 50 CFR 300
  • 50 CFR 679.40(a)(5)
  • 7 CFR 985
  • 7 USC 601-674
  • 10 CFR 35
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 50 CFR 680
  • Pub. L. 108-199
  • 50 CFR 680.40(b)(2)(iv)
  • Pub. L. 109-479
  • Pub. L. 109-241
  • 15 CFR 904
  • 9 CFR 94
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 7 CFR 340
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
  • 7 USC 7701-7772
  • 40 CFR 1506.10
  • 40 CFR 1505.2
  • 7 USC 71-87k
  • 7 CFR 1.27(b)
  • 41 CFR 102
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 773
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 121.201
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 553
Cite50 CFR 679
Cite50 CFR 300.62
Cite50 CFR 300
Cites 45 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.