Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

34,227 words·~156 min read·/register/2008/03/03/08-915

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0232; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-309-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 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 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: During fatigue tests

(EF3)on the A340-600, multiple damage were found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame

(FR)84 & 85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC). Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these aircraft series. The unsafe condition is loss of integrity of the upper shell structure of the fuselage. 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 April 2, 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 W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 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 Operations office 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 Operations 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1138; fax

(EF3)on the A340-600, multiple damage were found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame

(FR)84 & 85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC). Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these aircraft series. In order to allow early detection of cracks which could avoid possible crack propagation and consequently to maintain the structural integrity of the upper side shell structure between FR84 and FR87, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates an inspection program of this area [for cracking] using a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)method and a modification to improve the upper shell structure. This Revision 1 is issued to clarify that this AD is not applicable to aircraft A340-300 series on which both AIRBUS modifications 44205 and 45012 have been embodied in production. The unsafe condition is loss of integrity of the upper shell structure of the fuselage between FR84 and FR87. Corrective actions include contacting Airbus and repairing any crack. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April 10, 2007; Service Bulletin A330-53-3157, dated July 5, 2006; and Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, dated July 5, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This 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 601 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 $52,160 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $701,680, or $100,240 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: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0232; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-309-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 2, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models; all serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 44205 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus Modification 52974 or 53223 has been embodied in production. This AD is not applicable to Model A340-300 series airplanes on which both Modifications 44205 and 45012 have been embodied in production. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During fatigue tests

(EF3)on the A340-600, multiple damage were found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame

(FR)84 & 85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC). Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these aircraft series. In order to allow early detection of cracks which could avoid possible crack propagation and consequently to maintain the structural integrity of the upper side shell structure between FR84 and FR87, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates an inspection program of this area [for cracking] using a high frequency eddy current

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, as identified in paragraph

(c)of this AD, on which Modification 45012 has been embodied in production: At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, do the HFEC inspection for cracking, and corrective actions as applicable; and modify the upper shell structure of the fuselage; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April 10, 2007. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(i)Prior to the compliance time shown in Table 1 of this AD after the first flight of the airplane, depending on airplane configuration. Table 1.—Compliance Times for Model A330 Series Airplanes With Modification 45012 Embodied Airplane configuration Threshold Pre-modification 48827 (WV20 to WV27) 25,400 total flight cycles. Post-modification 48827 (WV50 to WV56) 17,100 total flight cycles or 94,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series airplanes as identified in paragraph

(c)of this AD, on which Modification 45012 has not been embodied in production: At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, modify the upper shell structure of the fuselage in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3157 or Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, as applicable, both dated July 5, 2006.

(i)Prior to the compliance time shown in Table 2 of this AD after the first flight of the airplane. Table 2.—Compliance Times for Model A330-200 and A340-300 Series Airplanes Without Modification 45012 Embodied Airplane series Threshold A330-200 6,600 total flight cycles. A340-300 14,000 total flight cycles.

(ii)Within 90 days after the effective date of 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1138; fax

(425)227-1149. 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, 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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0269R1, dated October 15, 2007, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April 10, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3157, dated July 5, 2006; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, dated July 5, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3969 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0231; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-218-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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 date, there have been at least 10 reported events on Fokker 70 (F28 Mark 0070) and Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) aircraft where the flight crew manually overpowered the autopilot, inadvertently neglecting to disengage the autopilot. * * * When the autopilot is not disengaged, the elevator servomotor is overpowered and the horizontal stabilizer is moved by the Automatic Flight Control & Augmentation System (AFCAS) auto-trim in a direction opposite to the (manual) deflection of the elevator, causing high elevator control forces. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the stabilizer to move to an extreme out-of-trim position, creating the (remote) possibility of loss of control of the aircraft, due to the extreme control loads. 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 April 2, 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:*

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. 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-2008-0231; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-218-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 based on 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—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the aviation authority for the Netherlands, has issued Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-010, dated July 14, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To date, there have been at least 10 reported events on Fokker 70 (F28 Mark 0070) and Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) aircraft where the flight crew manually overpowered the autopilot, inadvertently neglecting to disengage the autopilot. Detailed investigation of these incidents has shown that this usually occurs in a high workload environment that demands immediate manual control of the aircraft by the pilot flying, e.g., terrain warning. When the autopilot is not disengaged, the elevator servomotor is overpowered and the horizontal stabilizer is moved by the Automatic Flight Control & Augmentation System (AFCAS) auto-trim in a direction opposite to the (manual) deflection of the elevator, causing high elevator control forces. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the stabilizer to move to an extreme out-of-trim position, creating the (remote) possibility of loss of control of the aircraft, due to the extreme control loads. In the original design of AFCAS, operation of the control wheel-mounted stabilizer trim switches has no effect when the autopilot is engaged. Based on the assumption that stabilizer trim switches will be operated by the pilot flying when encountering high control forces, an Autopilot Disconnect Unit has been developed that disconnects the autopilot when the stabilizer trim switches are operated. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the installation of Autopilot Disconnect Units and associated wiring changes. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-22-050, dated April 25, 2006, including the drawings listed in the following table. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Drawings Included in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-050 Fokker drawing Sheet Issue Date W41501 057 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 058 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 059 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 060 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 061 CR April 25, 2006. W41501 062 CR April 25, 2006. W41504 009 K April 25, 2006. W41504 010 K April 25, 2006. W41504 011 J April 25, 2006. W41504 012 L April 25, 2006. W41504 013 L April 25, 2006. W46140 27 AR March 5, 2002. W46140 28 AR March 8, 2002. W46143 02 K February 26, 2002. W46143 03 K March 8, 2002. W46144 06 R March 4, 2002. W46144 07 S March 7, 2002. W46912 01 D March 12, 2002. W46930 01 Original March 14, 2002. W46930 02 E March 14, 2002. W46932 01 D March 13, 2002. W59140 177 GC February 8, 2006. W59140 178 GB February 6, 2006. W59140 221 GB February 6, 2006. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This 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 12 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 27 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 $3,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $61,920, or $5,160 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: **Fokker Services B.V.** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0231; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-218-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 2, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers; certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 22: Auto flight. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: To date, there have been at least 10 reported events on Fokker 70 (F28 Mark 0070) and Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) aircraft where the flight crew manually overpowered the autopilot, inadvertently neglecting to disengage the autopilot. Detailed investigation of these incidents has shown that this usually occurs in a high workload environment that demands immediate manual control of the aircraft by the pilot flying, e.g. terrain warning. When the autopilot is not disengaged, the elevator servomotor is overpowered and the horizontal stabilizer is moved by the Automatic Flight Control & Augmentation System (AFCAS) auto-trim in a direction opposite to the (manual) deflection of the elevator, causing high elevator control forces. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the stabilizer to move to an extreme out-of-trim position, creating the (remote) possibility of loss of control of the aircraft, due to the extreme control loads. In the original design of AFCAS, operation of the control wheel-mounted stabilizer trim switches has no effect when the autopilot is engaged. Based on the assumption that stabilizer trim switches will be operated by the pilot flying when encountering high control forces, an Autopilot Disconnect Unit has been developed that disconnects the autopilot when the stabilizer trim switches are operated. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the installation of Autopilot Disconnect Units and associated wiring changes. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, install autopilot disconnect units and do associated wiring changes in accordance with Section 3, “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-22-050, dated April 25, 2006, including the drawings listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Drawings Included in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-050 Fokker drawing Sheet Issue Date W41501 057 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 058 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 059 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 060 CQ April 25, 2006. W41501 061 CR April 25, 2006. W41501 062 CR April 25, 2006. W41504 009 K April 25, 2006. W41504 010 K April 25, 2006. W41504 011 J April 25, 2006. W41504 012 L April 25, 2006. W41504 013 L April 25, 2006. W46140 27 AR March 5, 2002. W46140 28 AR March 8, 2002. W46143 02 K February 26, 2002. W46143 03 K March 8, 2002. W46144 06 R March 4, 2002. W46144 07 S March 7, 2002. W46912 01 D March 12, 2002. W46930 01 Original March 14, 2002. W46930 02 E March 14, 2002. W46932 01 D March 13, 2002. W59140 177 GC February 8, 2006. W59140 178 GB February 6, 2006. W59140 221 GB February 6, 2006. 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. 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.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-010, dated July 14, 2006; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-22-050, dated April 25, 2006, including the drawings listed in Table 1 of this AD; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3971 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0247; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-003-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. AT-200, AT-300, AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, AT-800 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2002-25-09, which applies to certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) AT-250, AT-300, AT-400, and AT-500 series airplanes. AD 2002-25-09 currently requires you to install an overturn skid plate in the cockpit area. Since we issued AD 2002-25-09, we received a report of the bolts attaching the forward end of the original design overturn skid plate to the airframe breaking in an overturn accident. This allowed the skid plate to rotate around the rear attach point and the forward end of the plate to enter the cockpit area. Consequently, this proposed AD would require the installation of a modified skid plate kit or modification to skid plate kits that are already installed, including those already installed on AT-402B, AT-502B, AT-602, and AT-802A series airplanes during production. We are proposing this AD to prevent the front and rear connections of the overturn skid plate to the airplane from breaking, which could allow foreign debris to enter the cockpit during an airplane overturn. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot injury. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(940)564-5616; fax:

(940)564-5612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA San Antonio MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216, phone:

(210)308-3365, fax:

(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-0247; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-003-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light 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 concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Reports of foreign material entering the cabin area during an overturn skid on Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) AT-301 and AT-401 series airplanes caused us to issue AD 2002-25-09, Amendment 39-12985 (67 FR 78156, December 23, 2002). AD 2002-25-09 currently requires you to install overturn skid plate, part number (P/N) 11411-1-500 or an FAA-approved equivalent P/N. The manufacturer incorporated skid plates in some production models including Models AT-402B, AT-502B, AT-602, and AT-802A airplanes. Since we issued AD 2002-25-09, we received a report of the bolts breaking in an overturn accident where they attach the forward end of the original design overturn skid plate to the airframe. This allowed the skid plate to rotate around the rear attach point and the forward end of the plate to enter the cockpit area. We are proposing this AD to prevent the front and rear connections of the overturn skid plate to the airplane from breaking, which could allow foreign debris to enter the cockpit during an airplane overturn. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot injury. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Snow Engineering Company Service Letter # 97, Revised November 7, 2007. The service information describes procedures for: • Modifying the overturn skid plate by enlarging the mounting holes and replacing existing clamps and hardware on airplanes with the overturn skid plate installed; and • Installing the overturn skid plate for airplanes that do not have the overturn skid plate currently installed. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-25-09 with a new AD that would require: • *For airplanes with an installation previously accomplished per the original AD:* incorporating modification kit part-number (P/N) 11411-1-501 composed of the heavier attaching hardware; and • *For airplanes without the overturn skid plate installed:* incorporating kit P/N 11411-1-502, which incorporates the skid plate and the heavier attaching hardware. The airplanes below include all of the airplanes from the original AD, which did not have the factory-installed skid plate: Models Serial Nos. AT-250, AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-401A, AT-402, and AT-402A -0001 through -0829. AT-501, AT-502, AT-502A -0001 through -0147. The airplanes in the table below have been added to this proposed AD. They have a factory-installed skid plate and require installation of the overturn skid plate modification kit part number 1411-1-501: Models Serial Nos. AT-250, AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-401A, AT-402, AT-402A and AT-402B -0830 through -1196. AT-501, AT-502, AT-502A, and AT-502B -0148 through -2620. AT-602 -0337 through -1153. AT-802A -0003 through -0282. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2,026 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We presume that all airplanes in the U.S. fleet have a skid plate installed (as required by AD 2002-25-09) and the only cost is to incorporate the modification kit P/N 11411-1-501 in determining the total cost on U.S. operators. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification of installing the overturn skid plate modification kit P/N 11411-1-501 to those planes that currently have the overturn skid plate installed: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 work-hours × $80 per hour = $160 $42 $202 $409,252 The proposed AD includes a requirement for those few, if any, airplanes that have not operated past the compliance time of AD 2002-25-09. 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 have 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 that the 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2002-25-09, Amendment 39-12985 (67 FR 78156, December 23, 2002), and adding the following new AD: **Air Tractor, Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0247; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-003-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by May 2, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2002-25-09, Amendment 39-12985. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos. AT-250, AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-401A, AT-402, AT-402A and AT-402B -0001 through -1196. AT-501, AT-502, AT-502A, and AT-502B -0001 through -2620. AT-602 -0337 through -1153. AT-802A -0003 through -0282. Unsafe Condition

(d)Since we issued AD 2002-25-09, we received a report of the bolts that attach the forward end of the original design overturn skid plate to the airframe breaking in an overturn accident. This allowed the skid plate to rotate around the rear attach point, and the forward end of the plate to enter the cockpit area. We are proposing this AD to prevent the front and rear connections of the overturn skid plate to the airplane from breaking, which could allow foreign debris to enter the cockpit during an airplane overturn. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot injury. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)If overturn skid plate kit part number (P/N) 11411-1-500 or an FAA-approved equivalent P/N is already installed, then install P/N 11411-1-501 modification kit Within the next 180 days after the effective date of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #97, revised November 7, 2007.

(2)If there is no overturn skid plate installed, then install overturn skid plate kit P/N 11411-1-502 or an FAA-approved equivalent part number Within the next 180 days after the effective date of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #97, revised November 7, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification 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: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA San Antonio MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216, phone:

(210)308-3365; fax:

(210)308-3370. 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. Related Information

(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:

(940)564-5616; fax:

(940)564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 26, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4005 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 260 Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims; The Green Guides and Packaging; Public Workshop AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Announcement of public workshop; request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is planning to host a public workshop on April 30, 2008, to examine developments in green packaging claims and consumer perception of such claims. The workshop is a component of the Commission’s regulatory review of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, which was announced on November 26, 2007. DATES: The workshop will be held on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, from 9 AM to 5 PM at the FTC’s Satellite Building Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Any written comments in response to this Notice must be received by May 19, 2008. REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The workshop is open to the public, and there is no fee for attendance. The FTC also plans to make this workshop available via webcast (see *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/packaging/index.html).* For admittance to the Conference Center, all attendees will be required to show a valid photo identification such as a driver’s license. The FTC will accept pre-registration for this workshop. Pre-registration is not necessary to attend, but is encouraged so that we may better plan this event. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to *greenpackagingworkshop@ftc.gov* . When you pre-register, we will collect your name, affiliation, and your email address. This information will be used to estimate how many people will attend. We may use your email address to contact you with information about the workshop. Under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) or other laws, we may be required to disclose to outside organizations the information you provide. For additional information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see the Commission’s Privacy Policy at *www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.* The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of this contact information to consider and use for the above purposes. WRITTEN AND ELECTRONIC COMMENTS: The submission of comments is not required for attendance at the workshop. If you wish to submit written or electronic comments to inform discussion at the workshop, such comments must be received by April11, 2008. All comments in response to this Notice must be submitted no later than May 19, 2008. Comments should refer to “Green Packaging Workshop—Comment, Project No. P084200,” to facilitate organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-packagingworkshop.* To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that web-based form. You also may visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to read this notice, and may file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that *www.regulations.gov* forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. To read our policy on how we handle the information you submit—including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act—please review the FTC’s privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Frankle, Attorney, 202-326-2022, Laura Koss, Attorney, 202-326-2890, or Anne McCormick, Attorney, 202-326-3583, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction FTC staff is planning to conduct a one-day workshop on April 30, 2008, addressing environmental advertising claims regarding product packaging. The workshop will explore “green” packaging claims, consumer perception of these claims, and substantiation issues. The workshop is one component of the Commission’s regulatory review of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”), 16 CFR Part 260, which the FTC announced on November 26, 2007. 2 2 The **Federal Register** Notice announcing this review is at 72 FR 66091 (Nov. 27, 2007), and can be found at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/11/P954501ggfrn.pdf* . The Commission reviews all of its rules and guides periodically. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the Commission’s existing rules and guides and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained during these reviews assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. This notice addresses several issues related to the upcoming workshop; provides background on the Green Guides and the Green Guides regulatory review; briefly discusses consumer protection issues raised by green packaging claims used in today’s marketplace; and provides a short description of possible issues for discussion at the workshop as well as questions for comment. II. Background Information This **Federal Register** Notice is part of the FTC’s standard regulatory review of the Green Guides. The following section provides background information regarding the Green Guides and the Commission’s Green Guides regulatory review process. A. The Green Guides The Commission issued the Green Guides to help marketers avoid making environmental claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 3 Industry guides, such as these, are administrative interpretations of the law. Therefore, they do not have the force and effect of law and are not independently enforceable. The Commission can take action under the FTC Act, however, if a business makes environmental marketing claims inconsistent with the Guides. In any such enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the act or practice at issue is unfair or deceptive. 3 The Commission issued the Green Guides in 1992 (57 FR 36363) and subsequently revised them in 1996 (61 FR 53311), and in 1998 (63 FR 24240). The current Green Guides are available at *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm* . The Green Guides outline general principles that apply to all environmental marketing claims and provide guidance regarding specific claims. For all claims, the Guides advise that: qualifications and disclosures be sufficiently clear and prominent to prevent deception; marketers indicate whether their claims apply to the product, the package, or a component of either; claims not overstate an environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication; and marketers present comparative claims in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. The Guides then specifically address: general environmental benefit claims, such as “environmentally friendly”; degradable, biodegradable, and photodegradable claims; compostable claims; recyclable claims; recycled content claims; source reduction claims; refillable claims; and ozone safe/ozone friendly claims. For each, the Guides explain how reasonable consumers are likely to interpret them. The Guides also describe the basic elements necessary to substantiate claims within each category and present options for qualifying specific claims to avoid deception. 4 The illustrative examples provide “safe harbors” for marketers who seek certainty about how to make environmental claims, but do not represent the only permissible approaches to qualifying a claim that would otherwise be consistent with the Guides. 4 The Guides do not, however, establish standards for environmental performance or prescribe testing protocols. B. Green Guides Regulatory Review On November 27, 2007, the FTC published a **Federal Register** Notice commencing the decennial regulatory review of the FTC’s Green Guides. The Notice solicited public comments in response to questions about the Guides’ costs, benefits, and effectiveness and also posed claim-specific questions. The Notice announced that the FTC would be hosting public meetings to facilitate public dialogue on issues relating to the Green Guides review. The Commission will review and consider information gathered at these meetings, in addition to the public comments, in formulating its final determination. On January 8, 2008, the Commission conducted its first public meeting relating to the Green Guides Review—a workshop on Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates. The meeting announced through this **Federal Register** Notice, entitled “The Green Guides and Packaging,” will be the second public meeting planned as part of the comprehensive review of the Green Guides. A public meeting aimed at green claims related to packaging will enable participants and the Commission to focus in-depth on an area in which a wide range of green claims are prevalent. III. Green Packaging Claims and Consumer Protection Issues Since the Commission last revised the Green Guides in 1998, there has been a marked increase in environmental claims, including “green” claims concerning product packaging. Sellers and marketers, for example, frequently use terms addressed in the Green Guides, such as “recyclable,” “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “compostable,” or “refillable,” to claim their packaging is green. Sellers and marketers also are using new green claims not presently addressed in the Green Guides to emphasize the reduced environmental impact of their packaging, including such terms as “sustainable” and “renewable.” For example, some marketers now claim to adhere to a “cradle-to-cradle” philosophy, indicating that their product and its packaging are specifically designed to be easily and continuously recyclable. 5 Such claims, which concern the entire, and potentially repetitive life cycle of product packaging, raise several consumer perception and substantiation issues. Likewise, in recent years there has been a proliferation of environmental seals and third-party certifications purporting to verify the positive environmental impact of product packaging. The criteria for and meaning of these seals and certifications also raise consumer protection challenges. 5 “Cradle-to-cradle,” a term coined by authors William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book entitled *Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things* , is commonly used to indicate that a product has been designed from inception to be easily and continuously recyclable, thereby never entering the waste stream. Additionally, in recent years, marketers increasingly are using “bio-based plastics” 6 in packaging, resulting in new green packaging claims. For example, some marketers now claim that bio-based plastic bottles are “commercially compostable.” Proper disposal of these bottles and other new packaging materials may require new or less accessible recycling, composting, or disposal facilities. As a result, such claims raise potential consumer perception and substantiation issues. 6 Bio-based plastics are derived from plant sources (such as corn, potato starch, or sugar cane) rather than petroleum sources. IV. Issues and Questions for Discussion at the Workshop Some possible topics for discussion at the workshop are: 1) trends in packaging and the resultant environmental packaging claims; 2) packaging terms currently covered by the Green Guides, including “recyclable,” “recycled content,” “source reduction,” “degradable” (including “biodegradable” and “photodegradable”), “compostable,” and “refillable” and whether consumer perception of these terms have changed; 3) new green packaging claims not currently addressed in the Guides, including “sustainable,” “renewable,” and “bio-based”; 4) claims based on third-party certification and consumer perception of these claims; 5) the impact of changes in science and technology, including the use of new packaging materials and the use of new recycling, composting, and disposal techniques, on environmental packaging claims; 6) the state of substantiation for environmental packaging claims; and 7) the need for additional or updated FTC guidance in these areas. In addition to considering these possible topics, the Commission invites written comments on any or all of the following questions regarding environmental packaging claims. The Commission requests that responses to these questions be as specific as possible, including a reference to the question being answered, and reference to empirical data or other evidence wherever available and appropriate. A. Recyclable

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “recyclable” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception about “recyclable” packaging claims ( *e.g.* , “Please recycle” and the three-chasing-arrows symbol) since the Guides were last revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)Has consumers’ access to recycling facilities ( *e.g.* , curbside and drop-off facilities) for packaging changed since the Guides were last reviewed?

(a)If so, how, and how does this change affect consumers’ perception of what they can and cannot recycle? Please provide any evidence that supports your answers.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(4)Have the types of packaging capable of being recycled changed since the Guides were last reviewed?

(a)If so, how, and how do these changes, if any, affect consumers’ perception of what they can recycle? Please provide any evidence that supports your answers.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such changes? If so, how?

(5)Are there “recyclable” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(6)What recyclability disclosures are businesses currently making about packaging?

(a)Are current recyclability disclosures adequate to apprise consumers of the criteria for the recycling of packaging, the appropriate methods of recycling, and/or the availability of appropriate recycling facilities? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Are current recyclability disclosures adequate for consumers to understand whether the product or the package, or both, are recyclable? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(7)Should the current recyclability disclosures in the Guides be revised? If so, how?

(8)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “recyclable” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. B. Recycled Content

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “recycled content” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception about “recycled content” packaging claims ( *e.g.* , the three-chasing-arrows symbol) since the Guides were revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)Do consumers make distinctions between “pre-consumer” recycled content ( *i.e.* , materials recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream during the manufacturing process) and “post-consumer” recycled content ( *i.e.* , materials recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream after consumer use) in packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(4)Have technological changes affected what consumers consider “pre-consumer” and “post-consumer”?

(a)If so, please describe these changes and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such changes? If so, how?

(5)Are there “recycled content” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(6)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “recycled content” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. C. Degradable, Biodegradable, Photodegradable, and Compostable

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “degradable,” “biodegradable,” “photodegradable,” or “compostable” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception of these claims since the Guides were revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)How do consumers perceive “degradable,” “biodegradable,” “photodegradable,” or “compostable” claims with respect to packaging that consumers throw in the garbage ( *e.g.* , packaging ultimately disposed of in a landfill)? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(4)The Guides provide that an unqualified claim that a package is “compostable” should be substantiated by evidence that all the materials in the package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost ( *e.g.* , soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Should the Guides be revised to provide more specificity regarding the time frame for composting?

(a)If so, why, and what should the time frame be? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)If not, why not? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(5)Has consumers’ access to municipal or institutional composting facilities changed since the Guides were last reviewed?

(a)If so, how, and how does any such change affect consumers’ perception of what packaging they can and cannot compost? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(6)Are there “degradable,” “biodegradable,” “photodegradable,” or “compostable” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(7)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “degradable,” “biodegradable,” “photodegradable,” or “compostable” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. D. Source Reduction

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “source reduction” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception of these claims since the Guides were revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)Are there “source reduction” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(4)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “source reduction” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. E. Refillable

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “refillable” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception of these claims since the Guides were revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)Are there “refillable” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(4)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “refillable” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. F. Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly

(1)How effective have the Guides been in preventing consumer deception and providing business guidance with respect to “ozone safe” or “ozone friendly” claims about packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(2)Has there been a change in consumer perception of these claims since the Guides were revised?

(a)If so, please describe this change and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)Should the Guides be revised to address any such change? If so, how?

(3)Are there “ozone safe” or “ozone friendly” claims in the marketplace concerning packaging that are misleading? If so, please describe these claims and provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(4)To the extent not addressed in your previous answers, please explain whether and how the Guides should be revised to prevent consumer deception, provide business guidance, and/or reduce costs the Guides impose on businesses, particularly small businesses, with respect to “ozone safe” or “ozone friendly” claims about packaging. Please provide any evidence that supports your answer. G. Claims Currently Not Addressed by the Green Guides

(1)Should the Guides be revised to include guidance regarding “bio-based” packaging claims? If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not?

(a)What evidence supports making your proposed revision(s)? Please provide this evidence.

(b)What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of the term “bio-based”? Please provide this evidence.

(c)What evidence constitutes a reasonable basis to support a “bio-based” claim? Please provide this evidence.

(2)Should the Guides be revised to include guidance regarding life cycle or “cradle-to-cradle” packaging claims?

(a)If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(b)What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of life cycle analyses or the term “cradle-to-cradle”? Please provide this evidence.

(c)Is there an appropriate scientific methodology to evaluate life cycle or “cradle-to-cradle” packaging claims? If so, please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(3)Are there other environmental claims concerning packaging not currently addressed by the Guides, and if so what are they? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(a)Should the Guides be revised to include guidance regarding these claims? If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not?

(b)What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of these claim(s)? Please provide this evidence.

(c)What evidence constitutes a reasonable basis to support these claim(s)? Please provide this evidence. H. Third-Party Certifications and Seals

(1)What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of third-party certifications and seals, labels, or symbols on packaging? Please provide this evidence.

(2)Why are marketers using these third-party certifications and seals, labels, or symbols on packaging? Please provide any evidence that supports your answer.

(3)What criteria are third-party certifiers using to substantiate claims made with third-party certification, seals, labels, or symbols on packaging? Are those criteria appropriate? Please provide any evidence that supports your answers.

(4)Should the Guides be revised to include additional guidance regarding these claims? If so, how? By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E8-3972 Filed 2-29-08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669; FRL-8536-1] RIN-2060-AH93 Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of public hearing and corrected docket number. SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a public hearing to be held on March 14, 2008 for the proposed rule on “Revision to the General Conformity Regulations.” This rulemaking action was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2008 and proposes to revise EPA's regulations relating to the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requirements that Federal Actions conform to the appropriate State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan for attaining clean air (“general conformity”). The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed changes. EPA is also correcting the docket number published in the January 8, 2008 proposed rulemaking. In the January 8, 2008 Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations: Proposed Rule, there was an error made in citing the docket number. The appropriate docket number for the January 8, 2008 proposed rulemaking is EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669. Please submit all comments to docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669 when commenting on the January 8, 2008 proposed rule. DATES: The public hearing will convene at 9 a.m. on March 14, 2008, and continue until 1 hour after the last registered speaker has spoken. People wishing to present oral testimony must pre-register by 5 p.m. on March 11, 2008. For updates and additional information on the public hearing, please check EPA's Web site for this rulemaking at *http://www.epa.gov.oar/gencomform/* . ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, East Building, Room 1153, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20004. Because this hearing is being held at U.S. government facilities, everyone planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used inside the classroom and outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on Federal property for security reasons. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the public hearing or have questions concerning the public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Air Quality Planning Division (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone

(919)541-0641, fax number

(919)541-5509, e-mail address *long.pam@epa.gov* . Questions concerning the January 8, 2008, proposed rule should be addressed to Mr. Tom Coda, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number

(919)541-3307, e-mail at *coda.tom@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The January 8, 2008, proposed rule proposes to revise its regulations relating to the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requirement that Federal actions conform to the appropriate State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan for attaining clean air (“general conformity”). EPA has only revised the General Conformity Regulations once since they were promulgated in 1993 to include *de minimis* emission levels for fine particulate matter and its precursors (July 17, 2006). Over this period, States, EPA and other Federal agencies have gained experience with the implementation of the existing regulations and have identified several issues with their implementation. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued regulations to implement the revised ozone standard and in 2007, issued regulations to implement the new fine particulate matter standard. These regulations affect the timing and process for general conformity determinations. State and other air quality agencies are in the process of developing revised plans to attain the new standards and the proposed revisions to the General Conformity Regulations will be helpful to the State, Tribe, and local agencies as well as the Federal agencies in developing and commenting on the proposed SIP revisions. This proposed rule revision provides for a streamline process for Federal agencies and States and Tribes to collaborate and ensure Federal activities are incorporated in these State implementation plans. Where that is not possible, it provides an efficient and effective process for Federal agencies to ensure their actions do not cause or contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or interfere with the purpose of a State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan to attain or maintain the NAAQS. *Public hearing:* The proposal for which EPA is holding the public hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2008, (73 FR 1402) and is available at: *http://www.epa.gov/oar/genconform/regs.htm* . The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the supplemental rule proposal. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written comments on the proposed rule were requested to be postmarked by March 10, 2008, which is the closing date for the comment period, as specified in the proposal for the rule. However, the record will remain open until April 14, 2008, to allow 30 days after the public hearing for submittal of additional information. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearing. The EPA will provide equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations if we receive special requests in advance. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via e-mail or CD) or in hard copy form. The hearing schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted on EPA's Web site *http://www.epa.gov/oar/genconform/regs.htm* . Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? The EPA has established the official public docket for the supplemental proposed rule entitled “Revisions to the General Conformity” under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669. In the January 8, 2008, 73 FR 1402, Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations: Proposed Rule, there was an error made in citing the docket number. The appropriate docket number for the January 8, 2008 proposed rulemaking is EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669. Please submit all comments to docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669 when commenting on the January 8, 2008 proposed rule. As stated previously, the proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2008 (73 FR 1402) and is available at *http://www.epa.gov/oar/genconform/regs.htm* . Dated: February 22, 2008. Jenny N. Edmonds, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-4031 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 071017599-7600-01] RIN 0648-AW16 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2008 Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Operations Plan and Agreement and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Georges Bank

(GB)Cod Hook Sector (Hook Sector) has submitted an Operations Plan and Sector Contract entitled, “Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Fishing Year 2008-2009 Operations Plan and Agreement” (together referred to as the Sector Agreement), and an Environmental Assessment (EA), and has requested an allocation of GB cod, consistent with the Northeast

(NE)Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This rule proposes to modify the eligibility criteria for membership in both the Hook Sector and the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sector). This proposed rule provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed Hook Gear Sector Agreement prior to final approval or disapproval of the Hook Sector Operations Plan and allocation of GB cod Total Allowable Catch

(TAC)to the Hook Sector for the 2008 fishing year (FY). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW16, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the U.S./Canada TACs.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically 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 PDF formats only. Copies of the Sector Agreement and the EA are available from the NE Regional Office at the mailing address specified above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone

(978)281-9347, fax

(978)281-9135, e-mail *Thomas.Warren@NOAA.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that the Hook Sector Agreement, which contains the Sector Contract and Operations Plan, is consistent with the goals of the FMP and other applicable law and is in compliance with the regulations governing the development and operation of a sector as specified under § 648.87. The final rule implementing Amendment 13 (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) specified a process for the formation of sectors within the NE multispecies fishery and the allocation of TAC (or days-at-sea (DAS)) for a specific groundfish species, implemented restrictions that apply to all sectors, authorized the Hook Sector, established the GB Cod Hook Sector Area (Sector Area), and specified a formula for the allocation of GB cod TAC to the Hook Sector. The principal Amendment 13 regulations applying to the Hook Sector specify that:

(1)All vessels with a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the Hook Sector, provided they have documented landings, through valid dealer reports submitted to NMFS, of GB cod during FY 1996 through 2001 when fishing with hook gear (i.e., jigs, demersel longline, or handgear);

(2)membership in the Hook Sector is voluntary, and each member is required to remain in the Hook Sector for the entire fishing year and cannot fish outside the NE multispecies DAS program during the fishing year, unless certain conditions are met;

(3)vessels fishing in the Hook Sector (participating vessels) are confined to fishing in the Hook Sector Area, which is that portion of the GB cod stock area north of 39° 00′ N. lat. and east of 79° 40′ W. long; and

(4)participating vessels are required to comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, unless specifically exempted by a Letter of Authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, and the provisions of an approved Operations Plan. While Amendment 13 authorized the Hook Sector, in order for GB cod to be allocated to the Hook Sector and the Hook Sector authorized to fish, the Hook Sector must submit an Operations Plan and Sector Contract to the Regional Administrator annually for approval. The Operations Plan and Sector Contract must contain certain elements, including a contract signed by all Hook Sector participants and a plan containing the management rules that the Hook Sector participants agree to abide by in order to avoid exceeding the allocated TAC. An additional analysis of the impacts of the Hook Sector's proposed operations may also be required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, the public must be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed Operations Plan and Sector Contract. The regulations require that, upon completion of the public comment period, the Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding approval of the Sector Contract and Operations Plan. If approved by the Regional Administrator, participating vessels would be authorized to fish under the terms of the Operations Plan and Sector Contract. The Hook Sector was authorized to fish in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, and, based upon the GB cod landings history of its members, was allocated 12.60, 11.70, 10.03, and 8.02 percent, respectively, of the annual GB cod TAC. On September 28, 2007, the Hook Sector submitted a FY 2008 Operations Plan and Sector Agreement and an Environmental Assessment

(EA)to NMFS. The proposed 2008 Hook Sector Agreement and Operations Plan contains the same elements and proposed exemptions as the 2007 Hook Sector Agreement. The Hook Sector Agreement would be overseen by a Board of Directors and a Hook Sector Manager. The Hook Sector Agreement specifies, in accordance with Amendment 13, that the Hook Sector's GB cod TAC would be based upon the number of Hook Sector members and their historic landings of GB cod. The GB cod TAC is a “hard” TAC, meaning that, once the TAC is reached, Hook Sector vessels could not fish under a DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species managed under the FMP (regulated species), or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations). Should the hard TAC be exceeded, the Hook Sector's allocation would be reduced by the overharvest in the following year. The proposed 2008 Operations Plan proposes the same exemptions, as in 2007, from the following restrictions of the FMP: The GB cod trip limit; the GB and Southern New England

(SNE)limit on the number of hooks fished; the GB Seasonal Closure Area; the DAS Leasing Program vessel size restrictions; Differential DAS in the Gulf of Maine Differential DAS Area and in the SNE Differential DAS Area (those portions of the differential areas which overlap the Hook Sector Area); and the Western U.S./Canada Area 72-hr observer program notification. Justification for the proposed exemptions and analysis of the potential impacts of the Operations Plan are contained in the EA. A summary of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)is in the Classification section of this proposed rule. Nineteen prospective Hook Sector members signed the 2008 Hook Sector Contract. The GB cod TAC calculation is based upon the historic cod landings of the participating Hook Sector vessels, regardless of gear used. The allocation percentage is calculated by dividing the sum of total landings of GB cod landed by prospective Hook Sector members in FY 1996 through 2001, by the sum of the total accumulated landings of GB cod landed by all NE multispecies vessels for the same time period. Based upon the 19 prospective Hook Sector members (and their associated GB cod history), the Hook Sector's share of the overall U.S. portion of the GB cod TAC would be 6.01 percent, or 1,354,393 lb (614 mt) (6.01 percent times the fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 22,535,656 lb (10,222 mt)). If prospective members of the Hook Sector decide to not participate in the Hook Sector after the publication of this document and prior to a final decision by the Regional Administrator, the total number of participants in the Hook Sector and the Hook Sector TAC would be reduced from the numbers stated above. The Hook Sector Agreement contains procedures for the enforcement of the Hook Sector rules and a schedule of penalties, and provides the authority to the Hook Sector Manager to issue stop fishing orders to members of the Hook Sector. Participating vessels would be required to land fish only in designated landing ports and would be required to provide the Sector Manager with a copy of the Vessel Trip Report

(VTR)within 48 hr of offloading. Dealers purchasing fish from participating vessels would be required to provide the Hook Sector Manager with a copy of the dealer report on a weekly basis. On a monthly basis, the Hook Sector Manager would transmit to NMFS a copy of the VTRs and the aggregate catch information from these reports. After 90 percent of the Hook Sector's allocation has been harvested, the Hook Sector Manager would be required to provide NMFS with aggregate reports on a weekly basis. A total of 1/12 of the Hook Sector's GB cod TAC, minus a reserve, would be allocated to each month of the fishing year. GB cod quota that is not landed during a given month would be rolled over into the following month. Once the aggregate monthly quota of GB cod is reached, for the remainder of the month, participating vessels could not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species, or use gear capable of catching regulated NE multispecies. Once the annual TAC of GB cod is reached, Hook Sector members could not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species, or use gear capable of catching regulated NE multispecies for the rest of the fishing year. The harvest rules would not preclude vessels from fishing under the charter/party or recreational regulations, provided the vessel fishes under the applicable charter/party and recreational rules on separate trips. For each fishing trip, participating vessels would be required to fish under the NE multispecies DAS program to account for any incidental groundfish species that they may catch while fishing for GB cod. In addition, participating vessels would be required to call the Hook Sector Manager prior to leaving port. All legal-sized cod caught would be retained and landed and counted against the Hook Sector's aggregate allocation. Participating vessels would not be allowed to fish with or have on board gear other than jigs, non-automated demersal longline, or handgear. NE multispecies DAS used by participating vessels while conducting fishery research under an Exempted Fishing Permit during the FY 2008 would be deducted from that Hook Sector member's individual DAS allocation. Similarly, all GB cod landed by a participating vessel while conducting research would count toward the Hook Sector's allocation of GB cod TAC. Participating vessels would be exempt from the GB Seasonal Closure Area during May. The EA prepared for the Hook Sector operations concludes that the biological impacts of the Hook Sector will be positive because the hard TAC and the use of DAS will provide two means of restricting both the landings and effort of the Hook Sector. Implementation of the Hook Sector would have a positive impact on essential fish habitat

(EFH)and bycatch by allowing a maximum number of hook vessels to remain active in the hook fishery, rather than converting to (or leasing DAS to) other gear types that have greater impacts on EFH. The analysis of economic impacts of the Hook Sector concludes that Hook Sector members would realize higher economic returns if the Hook Sector were implemented. The EA asserts that fishing in accordance with the Hook Sector Agreement rules enables more efficient harvesting of GB cod with hook gear than would be possible if the vessels were fishing in accordance with the common pool (non-Sector) rules. The social benefits of the Hook Sector would accrue to Hook Sector members, as well as the Chatham/Harwichport, MA, community, which is highly dependent upon groundfish revenues. The EA concludes that the self-governing nature of the Hook Sector and the development of rules by the Hook Sector enables stewardship of the cod resource by Hook Sector members. The cumulative impacts of the Hook Sector are expected to be positive due to a positive biological impact, neutral impact on habitat, and a positive social and economic impact. In contrast, the cumulative impact of the no action alternative is estimated to be neutral, with negative social and economic impacts. Should the Regional Administrator approve the Hook Sector Agreement as proposed, a Letter of Authorization would be issued to each member of the Hook Sector exempting them, conditional upon their compliance with the Hook Sector Agreement, from the GB cod possession restrictions, the GB Seasonal Closure Area, the Western U.S./Canada Area 72-hr observer notification requirement, the DAS Leasing Program vessel size restrictions, differential DAS, and the limits on the number of hooks requirements as specified in §§ 648.86(b)(2), 648.81(g), 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(C), 648.82(k)(4)(ix), 648.82 (e)(2), 648.80(a)(4)(v), and 648.80(b)(2)(v), respectively. NMFS also proposes to modify the regulations that define eligibility criteria for membership in the Hook Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector, in order to be consistent with the Council intent. The eligibility criteria for membership in the Hook Sector and Fixed Gear Sector were implemented by Amendment 13 and Framework Adjustment 42 (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004; and 71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006, respectively). Of the several eligibility criteria for both these sectors in the implementing regulations, a criterion requiring documented landings of GB cod was not explicitly included as a criterion in the Council documents that proposed formation of the sectors. The implications of this eligibility criterion (requiring landings history of GB cod) were not apparent at the time of implementation, but became apparent during the evaluation of sector Operations Plans for FY 2008. Because the proposed roster for the Fixed Gear Sector for 2008 contains vessels that did not land GB cod during the period 1996 to 2001, the current regulations would prevent such vessels without landings from joining a sector. During the formation of the Hook Sector and Fixed Gear Sector, it was assumed that only vessels with GB cod landings would be interested in joining the sector, and therefore the landings criterion was not perceived as exclusionary. However, NMFS evaluated the pertinent information regarding the development of this regulation and concluded that this eligibility criterion does not reflect Council intent. Based on this evaluation, NMFS is proposing a correction to the current regulations by eliminating the eligibility requirement (for landings) because it precludes vessels without GB cod landings history from joining either sector, and is more restrictive than the Council intent. Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Below is a summary of the IRFA, which describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the EA prepared for this action. The Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $ 4 million in gross sales. All permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery, including prospective Hook Sector members, are considered to be small entities because gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold, and, therefore there is no disproportionate impact between large and small entities. The number of prospective participants in the Hook Sector is 19 (or less), substantially less than the total number of active vessels in the groundfish fishery. These 19 vessels would be subject to the regulatory exemptions and operational restrictions proposed for the Hook Sector for FY 2008. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed alternative would allocate a GB cod TAC of 614 mt to the Hook Sector. Once the GB cod TAC is harvested, participating vessels would not be allowed to fish under a DAS, possess or land GB cod, or other regulated species managed under the FMP, or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under recreational or party/charter regulations). Vessels intending to fish in the Hook Sector during FY 2008 may not fish for NE multispecies under a NE multispecies DAS during FY 2008 until the Hook Sector Operations Plan is approved. Hook Sector vessels may only fish with jigs, non-automated demersel longline, or handgear. Under the proposed Operations Plan, members would be exempt from several restrictions of the FMP described in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the EA. The proposed alternative would positively impact the members of the Hook Sector 19 (or fewer) vessels that have voluntarily joined the Hook Sector, who are relatively dependant upon groundfish revenue compared to other participants in the groundfish fishery. The proposed alternative would indirectly benefit the communities of Chatham and Harwichport, MA, and to a lesser extent other Cape Cod communities involved in the groundfish fishery. During FY 2006, members of the Hook Sector made 359 fishing trips, landed 179,616 lb (81,472 kg) of cod and 258,544 lb (117,274 kg) of haddock, and generated approximately $ 269,424, and $ 310,253 in revenue from those species, respectively (assuming a dock-side price of $ 1.50 and $1.20 per lb, respectively). Hook Sector members also landed various other species, which contributed additionally to their revenue. In general, the operation of the Hook Sector would continue to mitigate the negative economic impacts that result from the current suite of regulations that apply to the groundfish fishery (most recently Framework Adjustment 42; October 23, 2006; 71 FR 62156). The Hook Sector, by fishing under rules that are designed to meet their needs (as well as the conservation requirements of the FMP), is afforded a larger degree of flexibility and efficiency, which result in economic gains. For example, Hook Sector members are able to plan their fishing activity and income in advance with more certainty due to the fact that there is a cod TAC, which is apportioned to each month of the year. They are able to maximize their efficiency (revenue per trip) due to the exemption from trip limits and hook numbers. For some vessel owners in the Hook Sector, participation in the Hook Sector enables their businesses to remain economically viable. Modification of the eligibility criteria for the Hook Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector would allow vessels without a history of landing GB cod the opportunity to participate in a sector and to therefore take advantage of the associated sector efficiencies and financial benefits. The number of vessels that this modification would impact is likely very small. Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action Under the No Action alternative, all Hook Sector members would remain in the common pool of vessels and fish under all the rules implemented by Amendment 13 and subsequent framework adjustments. Under the regulatory scenario of the No Action alternative, Hook Sector members would likely face increased economic uncertainty, a loss of efficiency, and revenue loss. Because cod usually represents a high proportion of total fishing income for hookgear vessels, revenues for Hook Sector members are sensitive to regulations that impact how and when they can fish for cod, such as trip limits and hook gear restrictions. Hook Sector members would be unnecessarily impacted by regulations designed to affect the catch of species that hook gear catches very little of (e.g., yellowtail flounder, because hook gear is more selective than other gear types). For example, under the No Action alternative, Hook Sector members would be affected by the differential DAS counting requirement, one of the objectives of which is to protect yellowtail flounder. If no action is taken to modify the sector eligibility criteria, vessels without a history of landing GB cod would not have an opportunity to participate in a sector and take advantage of the associated sector efficiencies and financial benefits. The number of vessels affected however, is likely very small. No other alternatives beyond the No Action were considered as part of this proposed action. The RFA requires each IRFA to include a description of significant alternatives that accomplish the objectives of applicable statues (in this case, sector provisions) and minimize any significant economic impact to small entities. The objectives of sector management, as originally developed and implemented under Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP, are to provide opportunities for like-minded vessel operators to govern themselves so that they can operate in a more effective and efficient manner. The GB Cod Hook Sector developed the proposed operations plan after consultation with prospective members. Prospective members then signed a binding sector contract to abide by the measures specified in the proposed operations plan. As described above, the proposed operations plan minimizes economic impacts to participating vessels by allowing them to operate more efficiently. Accordingly, the proposed operations plan reflects the management measures preferred by vessels participating in the GB Cod Hook Sector during FY 2008 and represents all of the significant alternatives that accomplish the objectives of sector provisions and minimize economic impacts to small entities, as required by the RFA. Therefore, in conjunction with the NEPA requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, no other alternatives were considered as part of this proposed action. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Action This proposed rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed TAC allocations and plans of operation of sectors. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and record keeping requirements. Dated: February 26, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.87, paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2)(i) are revised to read as follows: § 648.87 Sector allocation.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)*Eligibility.* All vessels issued a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the GB Cod Hook Sector.

(2)* * *

(i)*Eligibility.* All vessels issued a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector. [FR Doc. E8-4039 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 42 Monday, March 3, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 27, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service *Title:* Virus-Serum-Toxin Act and Regulations in 9 CFR, Subchapter E, Parts 101-124. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0013. *Summary of Collection:* The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (37 Stat. 832-833, 21 U.S.C. 151-159) gives the United States Department of Agriculture, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) the authority to promulgate regulations designed to prevent the importation, preparation, sale, or shipment of harmful veterinary biological products. A veterinary biological product is defined as all viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products of natural or synthetic origin. In order to effectively implement the licensing, production, labeling, importation, and other requirements, APHIS employs a number of information gathering tools such as establishment license applications, product license applications, product permit applications, product and test report forms and field study summaries. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS uses the information collected as a primary basis for the approval or acceptance of issuing licenses or permits to ensure veterinary biological products that are used in the United States are pure, safe, potent, and effective. Also, APHIS uses the information to monitor the serials for purity, safety, potency and efficacy that are produced by licensed manufacturers prior to their release for marketing. Failing to collect this information would severely cripple APHIS' ability to prevent harmful veterinary biologics from being distributed in the United States. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 500. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 80,937. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4014 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0019] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Used Farm Equipment From Regions Affected With Foot-and-Mouth Disease AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of used farm equipment into the United States from regions affected with foot-and-mouth disease. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 2, 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-2008-0019* 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-2008-0019, 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-2008-0019. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations for the importation of used farm equipment from regions affected with foot-and-mouth disease, contact Dr. Jim Davis, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-6479. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Importation of Used Farm Equipment From Regions Affected With Foot-and-Mouth Disease. *OMB Number:* 0579-0195. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals, animal products, and other articles into the United States to prevent the introduction of animal diseases and pests. These regulations are contained in 9 CFR parts 92 through 98. In part 94, § 94.1 prohibits the importation of used farm equipment into the United States from regions in which foot-and-mouth disease

(FMD)or rinderpest exists, unless the equipment has been steam-cleaned prior to export to the United States so that it is free of exposed dirt and other particulate matter. Such equipment must be accompanied to the United States by an original certificate, signed by an authorized official of the national animal health service of the exporting region, stating that the farm equipment, after its last use and prior to export, was steam-cleaned free of all exposed dirt and other particulate matter. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

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

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

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

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.20 hours per response. *Respondents:* Exporters of used farm equipment in FMD-affected regions, and national animal health service officials in FMD-affected regions. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 1,000. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 10,000. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 2,000 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-4024 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0013] Determination of Pest-Free Areas Within the States of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil; Request for Comments AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have received a request from the Government of Brazil to recognize 7 municipalities in the State of Ceará and 13 municipalities in the State of Rio Grande do Norte as pest-free areas for the South American cucurbit fly. After reviewing the documentation submitted in support of that request, the Administrator has determined that those municipalities meet the criteria in our regulations for recognition as pest-free areas. We are making that determination, as well as an evaluation document we have prepared in connection with this action, available for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before May 2, 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-2008-0013* 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-2008-0013, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0013. *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: Mr. Juan A. Roman, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

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

(b)of that section. One of the designated phytosanitary measures is that the fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin. Under the regulations in § 319.56-5, APHIS requires that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance with the criteria for establishing freedom from pests found in International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures

(ISPM)No. 4, “Requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas.” The international standard was established by the International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and is incorporated by reference in our regulations in 7 CFR 300.5. In addition, APHIS must also approve the survey protocol used to determine and maintain pest-free status, as well as protocols for actions to be performed upon detection of a pest. Pest-free areas are subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status. APHIS has received a request from the Government of Brazil to recognize additional areas of that country as being free of *Anastrepha grandis,* the South American cucurbit fly. (APHIS currently recognizes two municipalities in the State of Rio Grande do Norte as free of *Anastrepha grandis* .) Specifically, the Government of Brazil asked that we recognize the municipalities of Aracati, Icapuí, Itaiçaba, Jaguaruana, Limoeiro do Norte, Quixerê, and Russas in the State of Ceará and the municipalities of Açu, Afonso Bezerra, Alto do Rodrigues, Areia Branca, Baraúna, Camaubais, Grossos, Ipanguaçu, Mossoró, Porto do Mangue, Serra do Mel, Tibau, and Upanema in the State of Rio Grande do Norte as areas that are free of *Anastrepha grandis.* In accordance with our regulations and the criteria set out in ISPM No. 4, we have reviewed and approved the survey protocols and other information provided by Brazil relative to its system to establish freedom, phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom, and system for the verification of the maintenance of freedom. Because this action concerns the expansion of a currently recognized pest-free area in Brazil from which melons are authorized for importation into the United States, our review of the information presented by Brazil in support of its request is examined in a commodity import evaluation document

(CIED)titled “Expansion of Pest-free Areas for the Importation of Melon from Brazil.” The CEID 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 CIED by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-5(c), we are announcing the Administrator's determination that the municipalities of Aracati, Icapuí, Itaiçaba, Jaguaruana, Limoeiro do Norte, Quixerê, and Russas in the State of Ceará and the municipalities of Açu, Afonso Bezerra, Alto do Rodrigues, Areia Branca, Baraúna, Camaubais, Grossos, Ipanguaçu, Mossoró, Porto do Mangue, Serra do Mel, Tibau, Upanema in the State of Rio Grande do Norte meet the criteria of § 319.56-5(a) and

(b)with respect to freedom from *Anastrepha grandis.* After reviewing the comments we receive on this notice, we will announce our decision regarding the status of those municipalities with respect to their freedom from *Anastrepha grandis.* If the Administrator's determination remains unchanged, we will add those municipalities to the list of pest-free areas. Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-4054 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Farm Service Agency Information Collection: Report of Acreage, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)and the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)are seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with revision of a currently approved information collection associated with the report of acreage for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). This information collection is needed to administer the program. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 2, 2008 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this Notice. In your comments, include volume, date and page of this issue of the **Federal Register** . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *Mail:* USDA Farm Service Agency, ATTN: Jantrice Chappell, Agriculture Program Specialist, CPS, Farm Programs, Production Emergencies and Compliance Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0517, Washington, DC 20250-0523. *E-mail:* Send comment to: *jantrice.chappell@wdc.usda.gov.* *Fax:*

(202)720-4941. Comments also should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jantrice Chappell, Agriculture Program Specialist,

(202)720-3637 and *jantrice.chappell@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description of Information Collection *Title:* Report of Acreage for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0004. *Expiration Date:* 09/30/2008. *Type of Request:* Extension with revision. *Abstract:* NAP provides financial assistance to producers who have suffered a production loss of an eligible crop or were prevented from planting an eligible crop as a result of natural disasters. Eligible crops are commercial crops or other agricultural commodities for which catastrophic risk protection under 7 U.S.C. 1508(b) is not available and that are produced for food or fiber and includes floricultural, ornamental nursery, and Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including species, type, variety, etc.), practices, intended uses, planting patterns, and predominant species of forage vegetation (including intended method of harvest, i.e. mechanically harvested or grazed); dates crops were planted or planting was completed (including age of perennial crops); number of acres of each planting of the eligible crop in which the producer has a share in the administrative county; number of acres intended but prevented from being planted; zero acres planted when the crop for which a NAP application for coverage was filed, is not planted; and shares and identities of all producers sharing in the crop at the time a NAP application for coverage was filed. Finally, the information collected includes the FSA farm serial number or location of commodities not necessarily associated with an FSA farm serial number such as colonies of bees for honey production (including the number of colonies belonging to the unit); ponds and waterbeds for production of aquaculture; ornamental nursery (including the size and origin, i.e. container or field grown, of plants belonging to the unit); mushroom facilities; turfgrass sod (including the average number of square yards per acre and all unharvested acres); and trees for maple sap production (including number of eligible trees, average size and age of producing trees, and total number of taps placed or anticipated for the tapping season). NAP operates under the regulations at 7 CFR part 1437. The revision is to correct the average time to complete the form that increases the total number of burden hours in this information collection. *Respondents:* Producers. *Estimated of Respondent Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes (.75 hour) per response. The average travel time, which is included in the total burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 291,500. *Estimated Annual Number of Forms per person:* 1.5. *Estimate of Total Annual Burden:* 619,438. *Comments Are Invited on:*

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

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

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

(4)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses received in response to this notice, including names and addresses, when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval. Signed in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-4015 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2008-0005] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring a public meeting on March 5, 2008. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the 2nd Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods

(CCCF)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in The Hague, The Netherlands, from March 31-April 4, 2008. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 2nd Session of the CCCF and to address items that will be on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 5, 2008, from 1 to 3 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the Harvey Wiley Federal Building Auditorium, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Codex documents related to the 2nd Session of the CCCF are accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Delegate to the CCCF, Dr. Nega Beru, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address: *henry.kim@fda.hhs.gov.* *Registration:* Register electronically to the same e-mail address above. Early registration is encouraged because it will expedite entry into the building and its parking area. If you require parking, please include the vehicle make and tag number, if known, when you register. Because the meeting will be held in a Federal building, you should also bring photo identification and plan for adequate time to pass through security screening systems. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2nd SESSION OF THE CCCF CONTACT: Dr. Henry Kim, Office of Food Safety, CFSAN, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740, Phone:

(301)436-2023, Fax:

(301)436-2651, e-mail: *henry.kim@fda.hhs.gov.* For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact: Edith Kennard, Staff Officer, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)720-5261, Fax:

(202)720-3157, e-mail: *edith.kennard@fsis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The CCCF was established by the Commission in 2006 as a separate Committee to establish or endorse maximum levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; to prepare priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); to consider methods of analysis and sampling for determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; to consider and elaborate standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and to consider other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed. The Committee is hosted by The Netherlands. Issues to be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the agenda for the 2nd Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters Referred to the Committee from other Codex Bodies • Matters of Interest arising from FAO and WHO • Matters of Interest of the 68th JECFA • Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods (GSCTF)—Proposed Draft Revision to the Preamble • Draft Maximum Levels for 3-MCPD in Liquid Condiments Containing Acid-HVP (Excluding Naturally Fermented Soy Sauce) • Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Chloropropanols during the Production of Acid-Hydrolyzed Vegetable Proteins

(HVPs)and Products that Contain Acid-HVPs • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Food • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Contamination of Food with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(PAH)from Smoking and Direct Drying • Draft Maximum Level for Ochratoxin A in Wheat, Barley and Rye • Draft Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Almonds, Hazelnuts and Pistachios that are “For Further Processing” and “Ready-to-Eat” • Proposed Draft Sampling Plan for Aflatoxin Contamination in Almonds, Brazil Nuts, Hazelnuts and Pistachios • Discussion Paper on Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in “Ready-to-Eat” Almonds, Hazelnuts and Pistachios • Discussion Paper on Aflatoxin Contamination in Brazil Nuts • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Dried Figs • Discussion Papers on Ochratoxin A in Coffee and Cocoa • Priority List of Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA Each item listed above will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the March 31-April 4, 2008, meeting in The Hague. Members of the public may access copies of these documents at *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* Public Meeting At the March 5, 2008, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to, Dr. Henry Kim, at *henry.kim@fda.hhs.gov.* Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 2nd Session of the CCCF. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2008_Notices_Index/.* FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription* /. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts. Done at Washington, DC, on: February 27, 2008. Paulo Almeida, Acting U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E8-4056 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2008-0006] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Additives AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on March 12, 2008. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the 40th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives

(CCFA)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Beijing, China, on April 21-25, 2008. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 40th Session of the CCFA and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 12, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the auditorium (Room 1A003), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), 5100 Paint Branch Highway, College Park MD 20740. Documents related to the 40th Session of the CCFA are accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Delegate to the CCFA, Dr. Dennis Keefe, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address: *ccfa@fda.hhs.gov.* Registration Attendees may register electronically to the same e-mail address above by March 10, 2008. Early registration is encouraged because it will expedite entry into the building and its parking area. If you require parking, please include the vehicle make and tag number, if known, when you register. Because the meeting will be held in a Federal building, you should also bring photo identification and plan for adequate time to pass through security screening systems. For Further Information About the 40th Session of the CCFA Contact: Dennis Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-205), CFSAN, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Phone:

(301)436-1284, Fax:

(301)436-2972, e-mail: *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov.* For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact: Doreen Chen-Moulec, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Room 4865, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Phone:

(202)720-4063, Fax:

(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The CCFA was formed in 2006 from the division of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. It was established to set or endorse maximum levels for individual food additives; prepare priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO and WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assign functional classes to individual food additives; recommend specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission; consider methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and consider and elaborate standards or codes for related subjects, including the labeling of food additives when sold as such. The Committee is hosted by the People's Republic of China. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the agenda for the 40th Session of the CCFA will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters Referred to the Committee from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Bodies • Matters of Interest arising from the FAO, WHO, and the JECFA • Endorsement or Revision of Maximum Levels for Food Additives and Processing Aids in Codex Standards • Consideration of the Codex General Standard for Food Additives

(GSFA)• Proposed Draft Revision of the Food Category System of the GSFA • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of Flavorings • Discussion Paper on Guidelines and Principles for the Use of Processing Aids • International Numbering System

(INS)for Food Additives • Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives • Priority List of Food Additives Proposed for Evaluation by the JECFA Each item listed above will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the April 21-25, 2008, meeting in Beijing, China. Members of the public may access these documents from *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* Public Meeting At the March 12, 2008, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be sent electronically to the U.S. Delegate for the CCFA, Dr. Dennis Keefe at *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov.* Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 40th Session of the CCFA. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2008_Notices_Index/* . FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts. Done at Washington, DC, on: February 27, 2008. Paulo Almeida, Acting U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E8-4060 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Designation for the Owensboro (KY), Bloomington (IL), Iowa Falls (IA), Casa Grande (AZ), Fargo (ND), Grand Forks (ND), Plainview (TX), and Amarillo

(TX)Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are announcing designation of the following organizations to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (USGSA): J.W. Barton Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Barton); Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois); Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Central Iowa); Farwell Commodity and Grain Services, Inc. (Farwell Southwest); North Dakota Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (North Dakota); Northern Plains Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Northern Plains); and Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview). We are also announcing the amendment of designated geographic areas for California Agri Inspection Company, Ltd. (California Agri) and Enid Grain Inspection Company, Inc. (Enid). DATES: Effective April 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Karen Guagliardo, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . Read Applications: All applications will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the September 4, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 50654), we requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above. GIPSA also asked for applicants in the north central Texas region as Amarillo Grain Exchange, Inc. (Amarillo), requested that GIPSA amend their designation by removing 19 counties from their assigned geographic area. Applications were due by October 4, 2007. Barton, Central Illinois, Central Iowa, North Dakota, Northern Plains and Plainview were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for additional comments on them. Farwell Southwest applied for part of the area currently assigned to them; Maricopa, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties, Arizona. California Agri Inspection Company, Ltd., a currently designated official agency, applied for designation in specific counties designated to Farwell Southwest. California Agri provides service in these California counties through an agreement with Farwell Southwest: Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Inyo, San Luis Obispo, Kern, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Bernardino. Plainview and Enid, both currently designated official agencies, applied for designation in specific counties designated to Amarillo. Plainview applied for designation in Cottle, Hardeman, King, Knox, Baylor, Archer, Stonewall, Haskell, Throckmorton, Fisher, Jones, Shackelford, Nolan, Taylor, Foard, and Callahan counties, Texas. Enid applied for designation in Clay, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties, Texas. In the December 3, 2007 **Federal Register** (72 FR 67884), we requested comments on the applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas assigned to Amarillo and Farwell Southwest. Comments were due by January 2, 2008. GIPSA received no comments. We evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(l) of USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Barton, California Agri, Central Illinois, Central Iowa, Enid, Farwell Southwest, North Dakota, Northern Plains, and Plainview, are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the September 4, 2007, **Federal Register** , for which they applied. These designation actions to provide official services are effective April 1, 2008, and terminate March 31, 2011, for Barton, Central Illinois, Central Iowa, Farwell Southwest, North Dakota, Northern Plains and Plainview. For California Agri and Enid, the designation to provide official services runs concurrently with their present designations. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below. Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation start-end Barton Owensboro, KY, 270-683-0616 Additional Location: Clarksville, IN 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 Central Illinois Bloomington, IL, 309-827-7121 Additional Location: Pekin, IL 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 Central Iowa Iowa Falls, IA, 641-648-3467 Additional Location: Des Moines, IA 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 Farwell Southwest Casa Grande, AZ, 520-421-1027 Additional Location: Brawley, CA 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 North Dakota Fargo, ND, 701-293-7420 Additional Locations: Ayr, Casselton, Enderlin, Hillsboro, Taylor, and Valley City, ND; and Cahokia, Teutopolis, and Wayne City, IL 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 Northern Plains Grand Forks, ND, 701-772-2414 Additional Location: Devil's Lake, ND 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 Plainview Plainview, TX, 806-293-1364 4/1/2008-3/31/2011 California Agri West Sacramento, CA, 916-374-9700 Additional Locations: Corcoran and Stockton, CA 1/1/2007-12/31/2009 Enid Enid, OK, 580-233-1121 Additional Location: Catoosa, OK 4/1/2007-3/31/2010 Section 7(f)(1) of the USGSA, authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(1)). Section 7(g)(1) of USGSA provides that designations of official agencies will terminate not later than three years and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in Section 7(f) of USGSA. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-3978 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in Aberdeen (SD), Decatur (IL), Hastings (NE), Fulton (IL), Missouri, and South Carolina Areas, and Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Serving These Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The designations of the official agencies listed below will end on September 30, 2008. We are asking persons interested in providing official services in the areas served by these agencies to submit an application for designation. We are also asking for comments on the quality of services provided by these currently designated agencies: Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc. (Aberdeen); Decatur Grain Inspection, Inc. (Decatur); Hastings Grain Inspection, Inc. (Hastings); John R. McCrea Agency, Inc. (McCrea); Missouri Department of Agriculture (Missouri); and South Carolina Department of Agriculture (South Carolina). DATES: Applications and comments must be received on or before April 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit applications and comments on this notice. You may submit applications and comments by any of the following methods: • To apply for designation, go to FGIS online, Web page *https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx.* Select *Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR).* You need e-authentication and a customer number prior to applying. • 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: Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (USGSA or Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(1)). Section 7(g)(1) of USGSA provides that designations of official agencies will terminate not later than three years and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of USGSA. Current Designations Being Announced for Renewal Official agency Main office Designation start Designation end Aberdeen Aberdeen, SD 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 Decatur Decatur, IL 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 Hastings Hastings, NE 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 McCrea Fulton, IL 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 Missouri Jefferson City, MO 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 South Carolina Columbia, SC 10/01/2008 09/30/2011 Aberdeen Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of North Dakota and South Dakota, is assigned to Aberdeen. Bounded on the North by U.S. Route 12 east to State Route 22; State Route 22 north to the Burlington-Northern

(BN)line; the Burlington-Northern

(BN)line east to State Route 21; State Route 21 east to State Route 49; State Route 49 south to the North Dakota-South Dakota State line; the North Dakota-South Dakota State line east to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 north to State Route 13; State Route 13 east and north to McIntosh County; the northern McIntosh County line east to Dickey County; the northern Dickey County line east to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 south to the North Dakota-South Dakota State line; the North Dakota-South Dakota State line east; Bounded on the East by the eastern South Dakota State line (the Big Sioux River) to A54B; Bounded on the South by A54B west to State Route 11; State Route 11 north to State Route 44 (U.S. 18); State Route 44 west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south-southeast to the South Dakota State line; the southern South Dakota State line west; and Bounded on the West by the western South Dakota State line north; the western North Dakota State line north to U.S. Route 12. Decatur Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to Decatur. Bounded on the North by the northern and eastern DeWitt County lines; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line; Bounded on the East by the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines; Bounded on the South by the southern Shelby County line; a straight line running along the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 16 to a point approximately one mile northeast of Irving; and Bounded on the West by a straight line from this point northeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington northwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart northeast to the west side of Beason on State Route 10; State Route 10 east to DeWitt County; the western DeWitt County line. Decatur's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Decatur's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: Okaw Cooperative, Cadwell, Moultrie County; ADM (three elevators), Farmer City, DeWitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County. Hastings Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Nebraska, is assigned to Hastings. Bounded on the North by the northern Nebraska State line from the western Sioux County line east to the eastern Knox County line; Bounded on the East by the eastern and southern Knox County lines; the eastern Antelope County line; the northern Madison County line east to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to the southern Madison County line; the southern Madison County line; the eastern Boone, Nance, and Merrick County lines; the Platte River southwest; the eastern Hamilton County line; the northern and eastern Fillmore County lines; the southern Fillmore County line west to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to State Highway 8; State Highway 8 west to the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81; the County Road south to southern Nebraska State line; Bounded on the South by the southern Nebraska State line, from the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81, west to the western Dundy County line; and Bounded on the West by the western Dundy, Chase, Perkins, and Keith County lines; the southern and western Garden County lines; the southern Morrill County line west to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 north to the southern Box Butte County line; the southern and western Sioux County lines north to the northern Nebraska State line. The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Farmers Coop, and Big Springs Elevator, both in Big Springs, Deuel County (located inside Kansas Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s area); and Huskers Cooperative Grain Company, Columbus, Platte County (located inside Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s, area). McCrea Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois and Iowa, is assigned to McCrea. Carroll and Whiteside Counties, Illinois. Clinton and Jackson Counties, Iowa. Missouri Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Missouri, is assigned to Missouri. South Carolina Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of South Carolina, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to South Carolina. Opportunity for Designation Interested persons, including Aberdeen, Decatur, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina, may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)), and 9 CFR 800.196(d) regulations. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning October 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2011. To apply for designation, contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information, or obtain applications at the GIPSA Web site, *http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.* Request for Comments We are also publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the quality of services provided by the Aberdeen, Decatur, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to the Compliance Division at the above address or at *http://www.regulations.gov.* In determining which applicant will be designated, we will consider applications, comments, and other available information. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-3980 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Upcoming Sunset Reviews. Background Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1391. Upcoming Sunset Reviews for April 2008 There are no Sunset Reviews scheduled for initiation in April 2008. For information on the Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews, *See* 19 CFR 351.218. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3, “Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders;” Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Policy Bulletin”). The Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews. Dated: February 22, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4058 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-4697. Background Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with section 351.213(2004) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation. Opportunity To Request a Review Not later than the last day of March 2008, 1 interested parties may request an administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in March for the following periods: 1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed. Period Antidumping Duty Proceeding BRAZIL: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, A-351-828 3/1/07-2/29/08 Orange Juice, A-351-840 3/1/07-2/29/08 CANADA: Iron Construction Castings, A-122-503 3/1/07-2/29/08 FRANCE: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-427-602 3/1/07-2/29/08 Stainless Steel Bar, A-427-820 3/1/07-3/6/07 GERMANY: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-428-602 3/1/07-2/29/08 Stainless Steel Bar, A-428-830 3/1/07-3/6/07 INDIA: Sulfanilic Acid, A-533-806 3/1/07-2/29/08 ITALY: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-475-601 3/1/07-2/29/08 Stainless Steel Bar, A-475-829 3/1/07-3/6/07 JAPAN: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-588-702 3/1/07-2/29/08 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Stainless Steel Bar, A-580-847 3/1/07-3/6/07 RUSSIA: Silicon Metal, A-821-817 3/1/07-2/29/08 SPAIN: Stainless Steel Bar, A-469-805 3/1/07-2/29/08 TAIWAN: Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing, A-583-803 3/1/07-2/29/08 THAILAND: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes & Tubes, A-549-502 3/1/07-2/29/08 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Chloropicrin, A-570-002 3/1/07-2/29/08 Glycine, A-570-836 3/1/07-2/29/08 Tissue Paper Products, A-570-894 3/1/07-2/29/08 UNITED KINGDOM: Stainless Steel Bar, A-412-822 3/1/07-3/6/07 Countervailing Duty Proceeding INDIA: Sulfanilic Acid, C-533-807 1/1/07-12/31/07 IRAN: In-Shell Pistachio Nuts, C-507-501 1/1/07-12/31/07 ITALY: Stainless Steel Bar, C-475-830 1/1/07-3/7/07 TURKEY: Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, C-489-502 1/1/07-12/31/07 Suspension Agreement None. In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding, an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or a suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. 2 If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover. 2 If the review request involves a non-market economy and the parties subject to the review request do not qualify for separate rates, all other exporters of subject merchandise from the non-market economy country who do not have a separate rate will be covered by the review as part of the single entity of which the named firms are a part. Please note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii). As explained in *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department has clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. See also the Import Administration Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of March 2008. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of March 2008, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: February 27, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4061 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3207. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 25, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). The Department initiated this review with respect to 32 companies. The period of review is August 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 2, 2008. On October 17, 2007, Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation withdrew its request for review. On December 19, 2007, Vinh Hoan Company Limited and Vinh Hoan Corporation withdrew their requests for review. On December 20, 2007, Petitioners withdrew its request for review with respect to twenty-seven companies, including Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation, Vinh Hoan Company Limited, and Vinh Hoan Corporation. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit because the Department requires additional time to analyze the supplemental questionnaire responses, issue additional supplemental questionnaires, as well as to evaluate what would be the most appropriate surrogate values to use during the period of review. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 120 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than September 2, 2008, which is the first business day after the 120-day extension. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. Partial Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. Petitioners withdrew their review request with respect to twenty seven exporters of subject merchandise within the 90-day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Also, within the 90-day deadline respondents Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation, Vinh Hoan Company Limited, and Vinh Hoan Corporation withdrew their respective requests for review. Requests for review from An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka Agifish or AnGiang Fisheries Import and Export) and Anvifish Co., Ltd., were not withdrawn by respondents. Therefore, we are partially rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam with respect to the following twenty five companies, because all requesting parities for these companies timely withdrew the requests for review: An Giang Agriculture and Food Import Export Company (aka Afiex, A. Seafood, Afiex Seafood, or An Giang Afiex Company); Basa Co., Ltd.; Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (aka Cataco); Cantho Seafood Export (aka CASEAFOOD); Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise (aka Cafatex); Cantho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Company (aka CASEAMEX); CL-Fish Co., Ltd. (aka Cuu Long Fish Company); Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (aka Da Nang or Seaprodex Danang); Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (aka COSEAFEX); East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.; Gepimex 404 Company; Hai Nam Co., Ltd.; Hai Vuong Co., Ltd.; Hoan An Fishery Co., Ltd.; Hung Vuong Co., Ltd.; Kim Anh Co., Ltd.; Mekongfish Company (aka Mekonimex or Mekong Fisheries Joint Stock Company); Nam Viet Company Limited (aka NAVICO); Ngoc Thai Company, Ltd.; Southern Fishery Industries Company, Ltd. (aka South Vina); Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited (aka Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd.); Vinh Hoan Corporation; Vinh Hoan Company, Ltd.; Vinh Long Import-Export Company (aka Imex Cuu Long); and, Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation. The following seven companies remain in this administrative review: An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka Agifish or AnGiang Fisheries Import and Export); Anvifish Co., Ltd., An Xuyen Company Ltd., QVD Food Company, Ltd., QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd., Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (aka THUFICO), and Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(I). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs“) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A), 777(I), 751, and 777(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 22, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4052 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating a five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping duty order listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-year Review which covers the same order. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review(s) section below at AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at

(202)205-3193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its *Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3 - *Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin* , 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). Initiation of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty order: DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact A-570-875 731-TA-990 PRC Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Juanita Chen

(202)482-1904 Filing Information As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet Web site at the following address: “http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of initiation of the sunset review. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306. Information Required from Interested Parties Domestic interested parties (defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and

(G)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing to participate in these Sunset Reviews must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the orders without further review. See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). For sunset reviews of countervailing duty orders, parties wishing the Department to consider arguments that countervailable subsidy programs have been terminated must include with their substantive responses information and documentation addressing whether the changes to the program were

(1)limited to an individual firm or firms and

(2)effected by an official act of the government. Further, a party claiming program termination is expected to document that there are no residual benefits under the program and that substitute programs have not been introduced. *Cf* . 19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). If a party maintains that any of the subsidies countervailed by the Department were not conferred pursuant to a subsidy program, that party should nevertheless address the applicability of the factors set forth in 19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). Similarly, parties wishing the Department to consider whether a company's change in ownership has extinguished the benefit from prior non-recurring, allocable, subsidies must include with their substantive responses information and documentation supporting their claim that all or almost all of the company's shares or assets were sold in an arm's length transaction, at a price representing fair market value, as described in the *Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act* , 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003) (“ *Modification Notice* ”). *See Modification Notice* for a discussion of the types of information and documentation the Department requires. If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. 1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department. This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 1 In comments made on the interim final sunset regulations, a number of parties stated that the proposed five-day period for rebuttals to substantive responses to a notice of initiation was insufficient. This requirement was retained in the final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the Department will consider individual requests for extension of that five-day deadline based upon a showing of good cause. Dated: February 22, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4055 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting A meeting of the Exporters’ Textile Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2008. The meeting will be from 1:00-4:00 p.m. at the Trade Information Center, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Training Room “C”. The Committee provides advice and guidance to Department officials on the identification and surmounting of barriers to the expansion of textile exports, and on methods of encouraging textile firms to participate in export expansion. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of seats available. For further information contact Larry Brill at

(202)482-1856. Minutes of all ETAC meetings are posted at otexa.ita.doc.gov. Dated: February 26, 2008. Janet E. Heinzen, Acting Chairman, Committee for Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-4049 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting A meeting of the Exporters’ Textile Advisory Committee will be held on May 8, 2008 from 10:00AM- 1:00 PM at the U.S Department of Commerce, U.S. Export Assistance Center, 444 S. Flower St. 34th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. The Committee provides advice and guidance to Department officials on the identification and surmounting of barriers to the expansion of textile exports, and on methods of encouraging textile firms to participate in export expansion. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of seats available. For further information contact Larry Brill at

(202)482-1856. Minutes of all ETAC meetings are posted at otexa.ita.doc.gov. Dated: February 26, 2008. Janet E. Heinzen, Acting Chairman, Committee for Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-4053 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-850] Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (over 4½ Inches) from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 26, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (over 4½ inches) from Japan. The review covers four manufacturers/exporters: JFE Steel Corporation; Nippon Steel Corporation; NKK Tubes; and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. The period of review

(POR)is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. Following the receipt of a certification of no shipments from all four respondents, we notified the domestic interested party of the Department's intent to rescind this review and provided an opportunity to comment on the rescission. We received no comments. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1784. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (over 4½ inches) from Japan for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 30542 (June 1, 2007). On June 29, 2007, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), a domestic producer of the subject merchandise, made a timely request that the Department conduct an administrative review of JFE Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel Corporation, NKK Tubes, and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. On July 26, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). On August 10, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to JFE Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel Corporation, NKK Tubes, and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. On August 27, 2007, Nippon Steel Corporation submitted a letter to the Department, certifying that the company made no shipments or entries for consumption in the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR. On August 28, 2007, JFE Steel Corporation submitted a letter to the Department, certifying that the company made no shipments or entries for consumption in the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR. On August 31, 2007, both NKK Tubes, and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. submitted letters to the Department, certifying that the companies made no shipments or entries for consumption in the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR. Scope of the Order The products covered by this review are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A- 334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum Institute

(API)5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this review also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this review are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to this review are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.19.10.30, 7304.19.10.45, 7304.19.10.60, 7304.19.50.50, 7304.31.60.10, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.04, 7304.39.00.06, 7304.39.00.08, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.15, 7304.51.50.45, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.20.30, 7304.59.20.55, 7304.59.20.60, 7304.59.20.70, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A- 106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A- 53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this review includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this review. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A- 53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this review. Specifically excluded from the scope of this review are: A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e., line and riser pipe that is

(1)used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more;

(2)intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project;

(3)rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and

(4)not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification ( *e.g.* , “API 5L”). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct Customs to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Rescission of the Administrative Review As noted above, all four respondents submitted letters to the Department indicating that they did not make any shipments or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In response to the Department's query to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), CBP data showed a small quantity of subject merchandise manufactured by one or more of the respondent companies was entered for consumption into the United States during the POR from a third country. On November 8, 2007, the Department placed on the record of this review copies of the entry documents in question. On the basis of these documents, the Department concluded that there is no evidence on the record that the respondents in question were involved with the 2007 entries of the subject merchandise into the United States. Specifically, although JFE Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel Corporation, NKK Tubes, and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. did not have any sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, subject merchandise produced by one or more of these companies entered the United States during the POR under their antidumping case number, without their knowledge by way of intermediaries. *See* Memorandum to the File, from Salim Bhabhrawala, Case Analyst, “Department Intent to Rescind Review,” January 16, 2008 ( *Intent to Rescind Memo* ). Thus, the Department found that the respondents' claims of no shipments or entries for consumption to be substantiated. On January 16, 2008, the Department notified interested parties of its intent to rescind this administrative review and gave parties until January 28, 2008 to provide comments. No comments were received. *See Intent to Rescind Memo* . Based upon the certifications and the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that no respondent had shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department will instruct CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice to liquidate such entries at the “All Others” rate in effect on the date of the entry. See 19 CFR 351.212(c); *see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 777

(i)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 25, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4063 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hua Lu, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6478. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 12, 2007, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Bon Ten”) and Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Mu Si”) covering the period January 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 52083 (September 12, 2007). The preliminary results of the new shipper reviews are currently due no later than February 27, 2008. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the day on which the review was initiated. *See also* 19 CFR 351.214 (i)(1). The Act further provides that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214 (i)(2). Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results The Department determines that these new shipper reviews involve complicated methodological issues and the examination of importer information. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for these preliminary results by 90 days, until no later than May 27, 2008. The final results continue to be due 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 21, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4037 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeals by Weaver's Cove, LLC and Mill River Pipeline, LLC AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of stay—closure of administrative appeals decision record. SUMMARY: This announcement provides notice that the Secretary of Commerce has stayed, for a period of 60 days, closure of the decision record in administrative appeals filed by Weaver's Cove, LLC and Mill River Pipeline, LLC (Weaver's Cove and Mill River Consistency Appeals). DATES: The decision record for the Weaver's Cove and Mill River Consistency Appeals will now close on May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Grosko, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, via e-mail at *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov,* or at

(301)713-7384. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In August 2007, Weaver's Cove, LLC and Mill River Pipeline, LLC (Weaver's Cove and Mill River, or Appellants) filed appeals with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The appeal was taken from an objection by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth), relating to Weaver's Cove's and Mill River's proposal to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Fall River, Massachusetts, and two associated pipeline laterals that would transport gas from the terminal to the interstate pipeline grid. Under the CZMA, the Secretary must close the decision record in an appeal 160 days after the notice of appeal is published in the **Federal Register** . 16 U.S.C. 1465. However, the CZMA authorizes the Secretary to stay closing the decision record for up to 60 days when the Secretary determines it necessary to receive, on an expedited basis, any supplemental information specifically requested by the Secretary to complete a consistency review or any clarifying information submitted by a party to the proceeding related to information in the consolidated record compiled by the lead Federal permitting agency. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b)(3). After reviewing the Weaver's Cove and Mill River Consistency Appeals' decision record developed to date, the Secretary has decided to solicit supplemental and clarifying information. In order to allow receipt of this information, the Secretary hereby stays closure of the decision record, currently scheduled to occur on March 4, 2008, until May 5, 2008. Additional information about the Weaver's Cove and Mill River Consistency Appeals and the CZMA appeals process is available from the Department of Commerce CZMA appeals Web site *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.* Dated: February 26, 2008. Jeffrey S. Dillen, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. [Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Assistance.] [FR Doc. E8-3951 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DOD-2008-OS-0015] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, DoD. ACTION: Notice. In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the *Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,* the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 3330 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3330. *Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number:* Department of Defense Application for Priority rating for Production or Construction Equipment, DD Form 691, OMB Number 0704-0055. *Needs and Uses:* Executive Order 12919 delegates to DoD authority to require certain contracts and orders relating to approved Defense Programs to be accepted and performed on a preferential basis. This program helps contractors acquire industrial equipment in a timely manner, thereby facilitating development and support of weapons systems and other important Defense Programs. *Affected Public:* Business or Other for-Profit; Non-Profit Institutions; Federal Government. *Annual Burden Hours:* 610. *Number of Respondents:* 610. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 1 hour. *Frequency:* On occasion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Information Collection This information is used so the authority to use a priority rating in ordering a needed item can be granted. This is done to assure timely availability of production or construction equipment to meet current Defense requirements in peacetime and in case of national emergency. Without this information DoD would not be able to assess a contractor's stated requirement to obtain equipment needed for fulfillment of contractual obligations. Submission of this information is voluntary. Dated: February 25, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-3995 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DOD. ACTION: Notice. In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

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

(703)767-2507. *Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number:* End-Use Certificate, DLA Form 1822, OMB No. 0704-0382. *Needs and Uses:* All individuals wishing to acquire government property identified as Munitions List Items

(MLI)or Commerce Control List Item

(CCLI)must complete this form each time they enter into a transaction. It is used to clear recipients to ensure their eligibility to conduct business with the government. That they are not debarred bidders; Specially Designated Nationals

(SDN)or Blocked Persons; have not violated U.S. export laws; will not divert the property to denied/sanctioned countries, unauthorized destinations or sell to debarred/Bidder Experience List firms or individuals. The EUC informs the recipients that when this property is to be exported, they must comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR 120 et seq.; Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR 730 et seq.; Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC), 31 CFR 500 et seq.; and the United States Customs Service rules and regulations. *Affected Public:* Individuals; businesses or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions. *Annual Burden Hours:* 13,200. *Number of Respondents:* 40,000. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 0.33 hours (20 minutes). *Frequency:* On occasion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Information Collection Respondents are individuals/businesses who receive defense property identified as Munitions List Items and Commerce Control List Items through: Purchase, exchange/trade, or donation. They are checked to determine if they are responsible, not debarred bidders, Specially Designated Nationals or Blocked Persons, or have not violated U.S. export laws. The form is available on the DOD DEMIL/TSC web page, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service sales catalogs and web page, Defense Contract Management Agency offices, FormFlow and ProForm. Dated: February 25, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-3996 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DOD-2008-DARS-0014] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 2, 2008. *Title and OMB Number:* Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 251, Use of Government Sources by Contractors, and related clauses in DFARS 252.251; OMB Control Number 0704-0252. *Type of Request:* Extension. *Number of Respondents:* 3,500. *Responses Per Respondent:* 3. *Annual Responses:* 10,500. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Annual Burden Hours:* 5,250. *Needs And Uses:* This information collection requirement facilitates contractor use of Government supply sources. Contractors must provide certain information to the Government to verify their authorization to purchase from Government supply sources or to use Interagency Fleet Management System vehicles and related services. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* Ms. Susan Jennifer Haggerty. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Haggerty at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: February 25, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-4000 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DoD-2007-OS-0031] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 2, 2008. *Title, Form, and OMB Number:* Post Election Survey of Overseas Citizens and Post-Election Survey of Local Election Officials; OMB Number 0704-0125. *Type of Request:* Revision. *Number of Respondents:* 2,167. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 2,167. *Average Burden Per Response:* .31 hours. *Annual Burden Hours:* 672. *Needs and Uses:* The information collection requirement is necessary to meet a requirement of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 [42 U.S.C. 1973ff]. UOCAVA requires a report to the President and Congress on the effectiveness of assistance under the Act, a statistical analysis of voter participation, and a description of State-Federal cooperation. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; state, local, or tribal government. *Frequency:* Quadrennially. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Ms. Sharon Mar. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Mar at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Comments may be e-mail to Ms. Mar at *Sharon_Mar@omb.eop.gov* . You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: February 25, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-4001 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: DoD. ACTION: Charter Amendment of Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.85, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is amending the charter for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors (hereafter referred to as the Board). The Board is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee established by 10 U.S.C. 2166(e) to provide the Secretary of Defense through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the operations and management of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations (hereafter referred to as the Institute). Section 956 of Public Law 110-181 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) amended the Board's membership provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2166(e)(1) to include the commanders of the combatant commands having geographic responsibility for the Western Hemisphere. All other provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2166(e) remained unchanged. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2166(e), the Board shall: 1. Inquire into the curriculum instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Institute, other matters relating to the Institute that the Board decides to consider, and any other matter that the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate; 2. Review the curriculum to determine whether it adheres to U.S. doctrine, complies with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, and is consistent with U.S. policy goals towards the Western Hemisphere; and 3. Determine whether the Institute emphasizes human rights to include the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2166(e)(1), the Board shall be composed of thirteen members: 1. Two members of the Senate (the Chair and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee or their designees); 2. Two Members of the House of Representatives (the Chair and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee or their designees); 3. One person designated by the Secretary of State; the senior military officer responsible for training and education in the U.S. Army (or designee); the commanders of the combatant commands having geographic responsibility for the Western Hemisphere (or designee); and 4. Six persons designated by the Secretary of Defense including, to the extent practicable, persons from academia, religious institutions, and human rights communities. Board Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. Board Members shall be appointed for a two-year term, and may be extended for an additional term of two years. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, they shall serve without compensation. The Board shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976, and other appropriate federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not Board Members. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors' Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Operations Board of Visitors. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-2554, extension 128. Dated: February 26, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-3997 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [USDF-2008-0005] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD. ACTION: Notice To Add a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force is proposing to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The changes will be effective on April 2, 2008, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Novell Hill at

(703)696-6518. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on February 11, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Dated: February 26, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. F036 ARPC M SYSTEM NAME: Air Reserve Personnel Center

(ARPC)Case Management System. SYSTEM LOCATION: Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80280-6900. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, retired active duty Air Force and retired Air Force Reserve members and dependents, internal employees, and members of the general public. CATERGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, case issue number, and/or account registration number, customer service account and case files including requests submitted by the applicant; intra-agency and interagency correspondence concerning cases; correspondence from and to the applicant; additional supporting documentation that the applicant submits; and military personnel data system extracts. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 10 U.S.C. 803, Department of the Air Force; 10 U.S.C. 10204, Personnel Records; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). PURPOSE(S): Documents are collected and maintained to assist members in requesting and obtaining various personnel and other forms of official ARPC support, tracking personnel transactions, to provide a record of those requests, and used as a management tool. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(3). The “Blanket Routine Uses” published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of the systems of records notices apply to this system. STORAGE: Electronic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), case issue number, and/or account registration number. SAFEGUARDS: Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in performance of their official duties who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Records are protected by standard Air Force access authentication procedures and by network system security software. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Disposition is pending until National Archives and Record Administration approves proposed disposition schedule. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Director of Personnel Data Systems, HQ ARPC/DPD, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80280-6900. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to Air Reserve Personnel Center, Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Manager, HQ ARPC/SCX, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80280-6500. The request should contain the full name of the individual, military grade, Social Security Number

(SSN)and must be signed. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals seeking to access records about themselves contained in this system should submit written requests to Air Reserve Personnel Center, Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Manager, HQ ARPC/SCX, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80280-6500. The request should contain the full name of the individual, military grade, Social Security Number

(SSN)and be signed. CONTESTING RECORD PROCDEDURES: The Air Force rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system. RECORD SOURCE CATERGORIES: Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Air Force retirees who request personnel services or assistance; Air Force Personnel Center, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service; the National Personnel Records Center; other activities of the Department of Defense; and correspondence from other cognizant persons or parties. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. 08-915 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 30

Traces to 30 documents

U.S. Code