Notices. Notice of intent to request public comments

18,574 words·~84 min read·/register/2008/03/05/08-939

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

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Ch. I Notice of Intent to Request Public Comments AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of intent to request public comments. SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing systematic review of all Federal Trade Commission rules and guides, the Commission gives notice that, during 2008, it intends to request public comments on the rules and guide listed below. The Commission will request comments on, among other things, the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the rules and guide; possible conflict between the rules and guide and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the rules and guide of any technological, economic, or other industry changes.

No Commission determination on the need for, or the substance of, the rules and guide should be inferred from the notice of intent to publish requests for comments. In addition, the Commission announces a revised 10-year regulatory review schedule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further details may be obtained from the contact person listed for the particular rule or guide. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission intends to initiate a review of and solicit public comments on the following rules and guide during 2008:

(1)*Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims* , 16 CFR 260. **Agency Contact:** Janice Podoll Frankle,

(202)326-3022, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Enforcement, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.

(2)*Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations* , 16 CFR 429. **Agency Contact:** Barbara Bolton,

(404)656-1362, Federal Trade Commission, Southeast Region, 225 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA 30303.

(3)*Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products* , 16 CFR 432. **Agency Contact:** Jock Chung,

(202)326-2984, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Enforcement, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. As part of its ongoing program to review all current Commission rules and guides, the Commission also has tentatively scheduled reviews of additional rules and guides for 2009 through 2018. A copy of this tentative schedule is appended. The Commission, in its discretion, may modify or reorder the schedule in the future to incorporate new rules, or to respond to external factors (such as changes in the law) or other considerations. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. APPENDIX REGULATORY REVIEW MODIFIED TEN-YEAR SCHEDULE 16 CFR PART TOPIC YEAR TO REVIEW 254 Guides for Private Vocational and Distance Education Schools 2009 300 Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act 2009 301 Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act 2009 303 Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act 2009 306 Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting Rule 2009 425 Rule Concerning the Use of Negative Option Plans 2009 500 Regulations Under Section 4 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

(FPLA)2010 501 Exemptions from Part 500 of the FPLA 2010 502 Regulations Under Section 5(C) of the FPLA 2010 503 Statements of General Policy or Interpretations Under the FPLA 2010 424 Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule 2010 444 Credit Practices Rule 2010 239 Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees 2010 433 Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses Rule 2010 700 Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 2010 701 Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions 2010 702 Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms 2010 703 Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures 2010 14 Administrative Interpretations, General Policy Statements, and Enforcement Policy Statements 2011 23 Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries 2011 423 Care Labeling Rule 2011 20 Guides for the Rebuilt, Reconditioned and Other Used Automobile Parts Industry 2012 233 Guides Against Deceptive Pricing 2012 238 Guides Against Bait Advertising 2012 240 Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments and Services 2012 251 Guide Concerning Use of the Word “Free” and Similar Representations 2012 310 Telemarketing Sales Rule 2013 801 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act Coverage Rules 2013 802 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act Exemption Rules 2013 803 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act Transmittal Rules 2013 304 Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act 2014 309 Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles 2014 314 Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information 2014 315 Contact Lens Rule 2015 316 Rules Implementing the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 2015 456 Ophthalmic Practice Rules 2015 603 Fair Credit Reporting Act

(FCRA)Rules - Definitions 2015 610 FCRA Rules - Free Annual File Disclosures 2015 611 FCRA Rules - Prohibition Against Circumventing Treatment as a Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency 2015 613 FCRA Rules - Duration of Active Duty Alerts 2015 614 FCRA Rules - Appropriate Proof of Identity 2015 698 FCRA Rules - Summaries, Notices, and Forms 2015 460 Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation 2016 682 FCRA Rules - Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records 2016 410 Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets 2017 312 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule 2017 18 Guides for the Nursery Industry 2018 305 Appliance Labeling Rule 2018 311 Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil 2018 436 Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising 2018 [FR Doc. E8-4195 Filed 3-4-08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 6750-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1188; FRL-8537-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Control of Stationary Generator Emissions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Delaware. This SIP revision contains provisions to control emissions from stationary generators. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1188 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1188, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1188. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,

(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On November 1, 2007, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a SIP revision for Regulation No. 1144—Control of Stationary Generator Emissions. The SIP revision applies to new, existing, emergency, and distributed stationary generators. II. Summary of SIP Revision Regulation No. 1144 will impact any owner of a stationary generator, except the owner of any of the following: mobile generator; residential generator for emergency power use only; certain generators whose emissions are already controlled; or generators with a standby power rating of 10 kilowatts or less. Regulation No. 1144 establishes operating requirements, fuel sulfur content limits, and recordkeeping requirements for stationary generators. The regulation will also require stationary generators which operate at times other than during emergencies for testing or for maintenance to meet certain emission standards to reduce their emissions. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the Delaware SIP revision for Regulation No. 1144—Control of Stationary Generator Emissions submitted on November 1, 2007. This regulation will help ensure that the air emissions from new and existing stationary generators do not cause or contribute to the existing air quality problems with regard to ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter, thereby adversely impacting public health, safety and welfare. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule pertaining to Delaware's control of stationary generator emissions, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: February 25, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-4256 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0005; FRL-8537-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; State of New Jersey AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New Jersey. This revision updates the direct PM 2.5 and NO X motor vehicle emissions budgets for Mercer County, located within the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The intended effect of this rulemaking is to approve budgets that will be used to determine transportation conformity. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02- OAR-2008-0005, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.* *Fax:* 212-637-3901. *Mail:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. *Hand Delivery:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Laurita, *laurita.matthew@epa.gov* at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, telephone number

(212)637-3895, fax number

(212)637-3901. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing. Under parallel processing, EPA proposes action on a state submission before it has been formally adopted and submitted to EPA, and then takes final action if:

(1)The state's final submission is substantially unchanged from the submission on which this proposal is based, or

(2)if significant changes in the state's final submission are anticipated and adequately described in EPA's proposal as a basis for EPA's proposed action. Table of Contents I. Analysis of the State's Submittal II. Proposed EPA Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Analysis of the State's Submittal On December 17, 2007, New Jersey submitted a state implementation plan

(SIP)revision to EPA updating the existing motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Mercer County, New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM 2.5 nonattainment area. MVEBs represent a cap that projected emissions from existing and planned highway and transit projects may not exceed. The emissions from transportation projects are evaluated through a metropolitan planning organization's (MPO's) process for determining the long-range transportation needs of a region, and its process for scheduling projects to be completed in the short term. New Jersey is revising the budgets for Mercer County to incorporate new planning assumptions. Since the original PM 2.5 MVEBs were approved by EPA (71 FR 38770, July 10, 2006), New Jersey discovered an error that underestimated the fraction of all vehicle miles traveled attributable to the heaviest category of heavy-duty trucks. The MPO responsible for transportation planning in Mercer County, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), is required to incorporate this updated assumption in its emissions modeling process. Approval of the revised MVEB will ensure consistency between the budget and DVRPC's planning process. EPA allows for the establishment of MVEBs for PM 2.5 prior to a state submitting its first required PM 2.5 SIP (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004, specifically see 69 FR 40028). These budgets are set through the establishment of an early SIP, which meets all the requirements of a SIP submittal, in which emissions from all sources, when projected from the base to a future year, show some progress toward attainment. EPA has interpreted the phrase “some progress toward attainment” to mean a 5% to 10% reduction in emissions from all sources (see 69 FR 40019). In New Jersey's original early progress SIP, the State demonstrated an overall 6.5% reduction in direct PM 2.5 and 32.3% reduction in NO X , a PM 2.5 precursor, from 2002 to 2009 within the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area. Using the new assumptions, the State has shown reductions of 6.3% and 32.0% from 2002 to 2009 for direct PM 2.5 and NO X , respectively; therefore, EPA has determined that the revised MVEBs still satisfy the early progress requirements and are approvable. Once approved, the revised MVEBs will supersede the existing PM 2.5 MVEBs for Mercer County, New Jersey (Table 1). Table 1.—Existing and Proposed 2009 PM 2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Mercer County, New Jersey [Tons per year] Pollutant Direct PM 2.5 NO X Existing 89 4,328 Proposed 108 5,056 II. Proposed EPA Action EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Mercer County, New Jersey. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: February 25, 2008. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E8-4233 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 158 and 161 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0010; FRL-8348-5] RIN 2070-AD30 Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides and Revisions to Product Chemistry Data Requirements for Conventional Pesticides; Notification to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. SUMMARY: This document notifies the public that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretaries of Agriculture, and Health and Human Services a draft proposed rule under sections 21 and 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As described in the Agency's semi-annual Regulatory Agenda, the draft proposed rule updates the data requirements in 40 CFR part 158 for the registration of antimicrobial pesticide products. Besides providing the regulated community with clearer and more transparent information, once finalized the data requirements will enhance the development of health and environmental data to conduct scientifically sound chemical/hazard risk assessments to protect human health and the environment. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0010. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703.305.6304; e-mail address: *boyle.kathryn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. It simply announces the submission of a draft proposed rule to the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)and Department of Health and Human Services. It does not otherwise affect any specific entities. This action may, however, be of particular interest to a producer or registrant of an antimicrobial pesticide product. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is EPA Taking? Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA requires the Administrator to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any draft proposed rule at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the **Federal Register** . Similarly, section 21(b) of FIFRA requires the Administrator to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with a copy of any draft proposed rule pertaining to a public health pesticide at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the **Federal Register** . The draft proposed rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If either Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft proposed rule within 30 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall include in the proposed rule when published in the **Federal Register** the comments of the Secretary and the Administrator's response to those comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing within 30 days after receiving the draft proposed rule, the Administrator may sign the proposed regulation for publication in the **Federal Register** anytime after the 30-day period. III. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Notification? No. This document is not a proposed rule, it is merely a notification of submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document. List of Subjects in Parts 158 and 161 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and record keeping requirements. Dated: February 25, 2008. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-4144 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 080110038-8248-01] RIN 0648-XF03 Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Reclassify the Loggerhead Turtle in the Western North Atlantic Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request for information and comments. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding for a petition to reclassify loggerhead turtles ( *Caretta caretta* ) in the western North Atlantic Ocean as a Distinct Population Segment

(DPS)with endangered status and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The loggerhead is currently listed as threatened throughout its range. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We have initiated a review of the status of the species to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted and to determine whether any additional changes to the current listing of the loggerhead turtle are warranted. To ensure a comprehensive review, we solicit information and comments pertaining to this species from any interested party. DATES: Written comments and information related to this petition finding must be received [see ADDRESSES ] by May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “0648-XF03”, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax: 978-281-9394, Attention: Barbara Schroeder • Mail: Information on paper, disk, or CD-ROM should be addressed to the Director of the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Schroeder by phone 301-713-2322, fax 301-427-2522, or e-mail *barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires us to make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In determining whether substantial information exists, we take into account several factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the **Federal Register** . If we find that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted, we are also required to conduct a status review of the species. The determination of whether the petitioned action is warranted must be made within 1 year of the receipt of the petition. Analysis of Petition On November 16, 2007, we received a petition from Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that loggerhead turtles in the western North Atlantic Ocean be reclassified as a DPS (see *Petition Finding* section below for discussion on Distinct Population Segments) with endangered status and that critical habitat be designated. The petition contains a detailed description of the species' natural history and status, including information on distribution and movements, population structure, behavior, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the current status of the species in the western North Atlantic Ocean. The petitioners assert that the western North Atlantic loggerhead is discrete from loggerhead populations found elsewhere due to physical, genetic, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors, and they provide information they believe supports this assertion. The petitioners further assert that the western North Atlantic loggerhead population is both biologically and ecologically significant relative to the species. The petitioners maintain that the western North Atlantic loggerhead nesting population has undergone a marked decline in recent decades, and cite coastal development, bycatch in fisheries, marine pollution, and global warming as primary threats to the population. The petitioners provide information on the western North Atlantic loggerhead relative to the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and assert that the western North Atlantic loggerhead population warrants an endangered listing. Finally, the petitioners request that, if the western North Atlantic loggerhead is not determined to meet the DPS criteria, loggerheads throughout the Atlantic Ocean be designated as a DPS and listed as endangered. Petition Finding Based on the above information and criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find the petitioners present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that a reclassification of the loggerhead in the western North Atlantic Ocean as a DPS and listing of that DPS as endangered may be warranted. The ESA defines a “species” as ”...any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) published a joint policy defining the phrase “distinct population segment” on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Two elements are considered in a decision on whether a population segment qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species and significance of the population segment to the species. If a population segment qualifies as a DPS, the conservation status of that DPS is evaluated to determine whether it is threatened or endangered. Under section 4(b)(3) of the ESA, an affirmative 90-day finding requires that we commence a status review on the loggerhead turtle. The Services recently completed a 5-year review of the loggerhead turtle, as required under section 4(c)(2) of the ESA (NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). This review recommended that a full status review of the loggerhead be conducted in accordance with the DPS policy. We have initiated this review, and, once it has been completed, we will make a finding on whether reclassification of the loggerhead in the western North Atlantic Ocean as endangered is warranted, warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions, or not warranted, as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. The review will also consider whether any additional changes to the current globally threatened listing for the loggerhead are warranted. There is no critical habitat designated for the loggerhead turtle. The ESA currently requires us to make a critical habitat determination concurrent with listing determinations. The ESA defines “critical habitat” as ”...the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed... on which are found those physical or biological features

(I)essential to the conservation of the species and

(II)which may require special management considerations or protection; and... specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed... upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” Section 4(a)(1) Factors and Basis for Determination Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c), a species shall be reclassified if the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is threatened or endangered because of any of the following factors:

(1)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(2)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(3)disease or predation;

(4)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(5)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Information Solicited To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available data, we solicit information and comments on whether loggerhead turtles in the western North Atlantic Ocean, or any other area, qualify as a DPS and, if so, whether it should be classified as threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas relative to loggerheads in the western North Atlantic and elsewhere:

(1)Historical and current population status and trends;

(2)historical and current distribution;

(3)migratory movements and behavior;

(4)genetic population structure;

(5)current or planned activities that may adversely impact loggerheads; and

(6)ongoing efforts to protect loggerheads. We also request information on areas within U.S. jurisdiction that may qualify as critical habitat for loggerhead turtles, both in the western North Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere within the species' range. Areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection should be identified. Areas outside the present range should also be identified if such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Essential features include, but are not limited to:

(1)space for individual growth and for normal behavior;

(2)food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3)cover or shelter;

(4)sites for reproduction and development of offspring; and

(5)habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12). We request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications. All submissions should contain the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address (see ADDRESSES ). Peer Review For listings, delistings, and reclassifications under the ESA, the Services issued a joint policy for peer review of the scientific data (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994). On January 14, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)published its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664). The intent of the peer review policy and the OMB Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We are soliciting the names of recognized experts in the field that could serve as peer reviewers for the loggerhead status review. Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific community, applicable tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups. References Cited National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Loggerhead sea turtles ( *Caretta caretta* ) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 65 pp. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: February 28, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-4231 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070717351-7373-01] RIN 0648-AV64 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to modify both the Individual Fishing Quota

(IFQ)Program and the Community Development Quota

(CDQ)Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries. This action would amend current regulations to remove a prohibition against the use of longline pot fishing gear in the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ and sablefish CDQ fisheries in the month of June. This action also would add regulatory provisions to allow members of the National Guard and military reserves who are mobilized to active duty to temporarily transfer their annual halibut and sablefish IFQ to other eligible IFQ recipients. This action is necessary to increase the efficiency of fishermen operating longline pot vessels in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery and to allow guardsmen and reservists to accrue some economic benefit from their annual IFQ if unable to harvest it due to military service. This proposed action is intended to promote the conservation and management provisions in the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(FMP)and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV64” by any of the following methods: • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Fax: 907-586-7557. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments must be in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file

(pdf)file formats to be accepted. Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)prepared for this action may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2252, 907-271-2809, or the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Obren Davis, 907-586-7228 or *obren.davis@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)under the BSAI FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ) (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. NMFS manages fishing for sablefish ( *Anoplopoma fimbria* ) through regulations established under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Sablefish is managed as a groundfish species under the FMP, as well as under the IFQ Program (described below) that allocates sablefish and Pacific halibut ( *Hippoglossus stenolepis* ) harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen. The International Pacific Halibut Commission

(IPHC)and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut through regulations established under the authority of the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention) and the Halibut Act. The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by these two officials, the IPHC regulations are published in the **Federal Register** as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007). Federal regulations governing the halibut fisheries in the BSAI management area appear at 50 CFR parts 300 and 679. Background and Need for Action A. The IFQ Program The Council, under the authority of the Halibut Act (with respect to Pacific halibut) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (with respect to sablefish), adopted the IFQ Program in 1991. The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program established a limited access system for managing the fixed gear Pacific halibut fishery in Convention waters in and off Alaska and sablefish fisheries in waters of the EEZ, located between 3 and 200 miles off Alaska. The IFQ Program was approved by NMFS in January 1993, and promulgated in Federal regulation on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). Fishing under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program began on March 15, 1995, ending the open access fisheries which preceded its implementation. Regulations implementing the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program are at 50 CFR part 679. The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program was developed to reduce fishing capacity that had increased during years of management as an open access fishery, while maintaining the social and economic character of the fixed gear fisheries that coastal communities in Alaska rely on as a source of revenue. The Council and the Secretary concluded that the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program would provide economic stability for the commercial hook-and-line fishery while reducing many of the conservation and management problems commonly associated with open access fisheries. The proposed rule for the IFQ Program (57 FR 57130; December 3, 1992) describes, in detail, the background leading to the Council's adoption of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. The Council and NMFS also intended the IFQ Program to improve the long-term productivity of the sablefish and halibut fisheries by further promoting the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Act while retaining the character and distribution of the fishing fleets as much as possible. The IFQ Program includes several provisions, such as ownership caps and vessel use caps, that are intended to protect small producers, part-time participants, and entry-level participants that otherwise could be adversely affected by excessive consolidation. The IFQ Program also includes other restrictions intended to prevent the halibut and sablefish fisheries from being dominated by large boats or by any particular vessel class. These and other types of requirements were designed to maintain predominantly owner-operated fisheries, which was a key characteristic of the halibut and sablefish fisheries prior to the implementation of the IFQ Program. Under the IFQ Program, quota share

(QS)represents a harvesting privilege for a person. On an annual basis, QS holders are authorized to harvest a specified poundage which is issued by NMFS as IFQ. The specific amount of IFQ held by a person is determined by the number of QS units held, the total number of QS units issued in a specific regulatory area, and the total pounds of sablefish or halibut allocated for the IFQ fisheries in a particular year. Fishermen may harvest the IFQ over the entire fishing season, which in 2007 was March 10 through November 15 for halibut (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007) and sablefish (72 FR 9676; March 5, 2007). Generally, an IFQ permit holder must be onboard a vessel at the time his or her IFQ is fished. He or she also must comply with IFQ landing report requirements at § 679.5(l)(2). IFQ regulations also restrict the type of QS and IFQ transfers that may occur, including restrictions against the transfer of most types of QS if the QS is subject to a lease or condition of repossession or resale by the person transferring the QS. This effectively precludes temporary transfers of QS and IFQ between parties. QS is categorized by vessel size and type. IFQ derived from QS associated with processing vessels (vessel category A) may be temporarily transferred or leased, while much of the IFQ derived from QS associated with catcher vessels (vessel categories B, C, and D) may not be temporarily transferred or leased, with limited exception. The requirements that catcher vessel QS holders be onboard a vessel while conducting IFQ fishing operations and present during an IFQ landing, as well as the restrictions against temporary transfers of IFQ, are conditionally excepted by other IFQ Program regulations. There are three exceptions to the general IFQ transfer restrictions at § 679.41. Emergency waivers to IFQ landing requirements are allowed in limited situations (i.e., emergency medical situations that occur at sea) and only allow the IFQ associated with a particular permit to be temporarily fished, and an IFQ landing made, by someone other than the permit holder or IFQ hired master (see § 679.42(d)(1)). Secondly, halibut and sablefish QS holders may request medical transfers of their IFQ (see § 679.42(d)(2)) in the event of a medical conditions affecting a QS holder or immediate family member. Finally, a surviving spouse or beneficiary of a deceased QS holder may transfer the associated IFQ for up to three years to an eligible IFQ recipient (see § 679.41(k)(3)). An exception to the owner-on-board requirement is provided for individuals who received initial allocations of QS in vessel category B, C, or D. Initial recipients of catcher vessel QS may be absent from a vessel conducting IFQ halibut or sablefish fishing, provided the QS holder can demonstrate ownership of the vessel which harvests the IFQ halibut or sablefish and representation on the vessel by a hired master. This exception allows fishermen who historically operated their fishing businesses using hired masters before the implementation of the IFQ Program to retain the flexibility of using hired masters under the IFQ Program. Hired master provisions also are applicable to the CDQ Program (described below), as annual halibut CDQ is issued to corporate entities. Each CDQ entity annually authorizes numerous fishermen to fish for its halibut CDQ and land halibut for accrual against the CDQ entity's halibut CDQ permit. B. The CDQ Program The CDQ Program is an economic development program associated with federally managed fisheries in the BSAI. The purpose of the program is to provide western Alaska communities the opportunity to participate and invest in BSAI fisheries, to support economic development in western Alaska, to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska. The CDQ Program receives apportionments of the annual catch limits for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI. These allocations are in turn allocated among six different non-profit managing organizations (CDQ entities) representing different affiliations of 65 different communities. CDQ entities use the revenue derived from the harvest of their fisheries allocations as a basis for funding economic development activities and for providing employment opportunities. Thus, the successful harvest of CDQ Program allocations is integral to achieving the goals of the program. Regulations establishing the CDQ Program were first implemented in 1992. The CDQ Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 through the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297). Section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes requirements to establish the CDQ Program and allocate a percentage of the total allowable catch of any Bering Sea fishery to the program. Corresponding Federal and state regulations implemented various administrative and fisheries management aspects of the CDQ Program. The fisheries management regulations governing the CDQ fisheries are integrated into the regulations governing the non-CDQ fisheries for groundfish, halibut, and crab. NMFS, the State of Alaska, and the Western Alaska Community Development Association administer the CDQ Program. C. Description of Proposed Regulatory Amendments This proposed action would

(1)remove a prohibition against using longline pot gear in the Bering Sea during the month of June, and

(2)amend regulations to allow military reservists and National Guard members to temporarily transfer their IFQ if mobilized to active duty. The Council made recommendations for regulatory revisions for each of these actions in June 2006, as part of a multi-part IFQ regulatory amendment package. NMFS subsequently separated the Council's comprehensive recommendations into different regulatory amendment packages, including this proposed rule. NMFS also proposes several administrative changes to amend certain modifiers that describe IFQ and CDQ permits in paragraphs

(d)and

(e)of § 679.4. This includes revising terms such as “original,” “copy,” and “valid” to read “legible copy.” This is intended to make the descriptors used in association with such permits consistent throughout these paragraphs. The following sections provide a detailed explanation of the regulatory amendments contained in this proposed rule. Allow Longline Pot Gear to be Used in the Bering Sea Sablefish Fishery in June This proposed rule would amend regulations in 50 CFR part 679 to remove a prohibition against the use of longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery during the month of June. Existing regulations prohibit deployment of longline pot gear during this month, due to past concerns about conflicts between vessel operators that use different types of fishing gear. Specifically, § 679.24(c)(4) would be revised to remove a June closure for longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery. The use of longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery became an issue in 1991. The nature of longline pot gear and strategies used in fishing longline pot gear was once thought to deter fishermen from deploying hook-and-line gear on fishing grounds where longline pot gear is set. The groundline (to which baited pots are attached) used with longline pot gear is heavier and stronger than that used for longline hook-and-line gear. If longline pot gear were to be set over previously deployed longline hook-and-line gear, the latter could be damaged or lost during its retrieval. The Council recommended a prohibition against longline pot gear in the Bering Sea subarea to prevent the potential preemption of fishing grounds. This was based on its concerns about potential conflicts between vessel operators using different gear types on common fishing grounds. Final regulations prohibiting the use of longline pot gear were published on August 21, 1992 (57 FR 37906). That rule fully describes the rationale for implementing this gear restriction. In 1995, the IFQ Program extended the fishing season for halibut and sablefish in Federal waters off Alaska to approximately eight months. Prior seasons typically consisted of one or two day openings of concentrated effort. By allowing the sablefish fleet to spread its operations over time, the IFQ Program reduced the possibility of congestion and preemption of common fishing grounds. However, during the first IFQ season, fishing industry representatives reported to the Council that the annual Bering Sea sablefish quota had been underharvested due, in part, to fishery interactions with orcas and sperm whales. Whales are able strip hooked fish from fishing gear, reducing the amount of sablefish landed by fishermen using hook-and-line gear. Such predation represents undocumented fishing mortality. Even though the sablefish quota may be underharvested by fishermen, overall fishing mortality could actually be higher than the specified quota, resulting in unrecorded harvests. Attempts to deter whales from preying on fish caught on hook-and-line gear by various non-lethal means have proven unsuccessful. One viable method for reducing whale predation is to harvest sablefish with longline pot gear instead of hook-and-line gear. This realization led to a reconsideration of the ban on longline pot gear in the sablefish fishery. On September 18, 1996, a Bering Sea closure to longline pot gear from June 1 through June 30 replaced the year-round gear prohibition (61 FR 49076). The reintroduction of longline pot gear into the Bering Sea fisheries posed less of a concern for fishing grounds preemption in 1996, compared with 1992 when longline pot gear originally was prohibited. Authorizing the use of longline pot gear, with limitations, in the Bering Sea directed sablefish fishery allowed fishermen to use this gear and reduce interactions with whales. In recommending the lifting of the ban on longline pots, the Council expressed concern that, despite the decreased likelihood of grounds pre-emption, fishermen using traditional hook-and-line gear in relatively small boats may be pre-empted from grounds by fishermen in larger boats using longline pot gear. Thus, a June closure was retained for the benefit of small vessels using hook-and-line gear to fish for sablefish. June was chosen for the closure because it generally has fair weather, a safety advantage for small vessels. In October 2004, a representative for longline pot vessels proposed that gear competition between the sablefish longline pot fleet and other fisheries had not occurred in June, and asserted that such potential conflicts were no longer a valid concern (as described below) and that the regulatory prohibition was unnecessary and burdensome. No public testimony was received in opposition to this proposal. As a result, the Council initiated an analysis of allowing longline pot gear during June in both the fixed gear Bering Sea IFQ and CDQ sablefish fisheries. This proposed action would implement the Council's June 2006 recommendation to remove the June longline pot gear closure. Doing so may provide an opportunity to harvest additional amounts of the annual sablefish IFQ and sablefish CDQ allocations. These allocations historically have been underharvested. In 2007, 67 percent of the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ allocations was harvested, compared with 94 to 100 percent in the four different Gulf of Alaska sablefish regulatory areas. The fixed gear sablefish CDQ fishery caught 79 percent of the Bering Sea sablefish fixed gear CDQ allocation that year. On average, 56 percent of the annual Bering Sea sablefish IFQ allocation was harvested during the years 2003 through 2007. Since 2004, pot gear has accounted for over half of the annual fixed gear sablefish catch in the Bering Sea. While the original June closure was intended to prevent conflicts between different gear groups, one of the over-arching operational issues in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery in the last decade has been predation of hooked sablefish by whales. This in turn has led to changes in the predominant gear type used in this fishery to pot gear from hook-and-line gear, which may diminish the potential for fishing ground conflicts between different gear groups overall, and during June in particular. This action would address a problem in the IFQ sablefish and CDQ sablefish fisheries resulting from a previous Council action. The June longline pot gear prohibition in the Bering Sea sablefish fisheries is operationally inefficient, with respect to the constraints that are placed on fishermen using longline pot gear during the middle of the sablefish season. This is of particular concern because longline pot gear is increasingly being deployed in the Bering Sea, compared to the different mix of gear types deployed during the initial years of the IFQ Program. Most gear reported in the pot gear category in the Bering Sea is assumed to be longline pots, despite the lack of a unique reporting code for this gear type. Single pot and line gear is not used much in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery because sea conditions result in its loss. Because the fixed gear sablefish fishery historically has not completely harvested the annual Bering Sea sablefish IFQ and CDQ allocations, elimination of the June closure may increase total landings and reduce fishing costs. NMFS does not have the information necessary to know whether the June longline pot gear prohibition results in completely foregone harvesting opportunities and revenue during that month, or whether sablefish fishing effort and harvests shift to other months of the sablefish fishing season. However, operational flexibility and economic efficiency is expected to increase for Bering Sea sablefish IFQ and CDQ fishermen should this action be approved. Fishermen wishing to use longline pot gear during June would benefit from this change by being able to use such gear without a mandatory, mid-season, one month stand down. This action could affect the 115 Bering Sea IFQ sablefish permit holders and the six CDQ entities that received sablefish CDQ in 2007. Industry representatives reported to the Council in 2006 that perhaps six longline pot vessels may fish this gear type during June if the prohibition is removed. No representatives of the hook-and-line sector testified about or have otherwise communicated to the Council or NMFS that this proposed change would have adverse effects on their sablefish fishing operations. NMFS also notes that longline pot gear may be used to fish for other Bering Sea groundfish species (such as Pacific cod) during June; issues of gear conflicts between Pacific cod longline vessel operators and sablefish hook-and-line vessel operators have not been communicated to NMFS. Adoption of this proposed action would not change the catch monitoring and accounting practices in place for the sablefish IFQ and sablefish CDQ fisheries. Removing the June closure would mean that enforcement personnel would no longer have to monitor whether vessels fishing with longline pot gear in June were targeting sablefish, which currently is a prohibited activity. Neither the NOAA Office for Law Enforcement nor the U.S. Coast Guard have indicated any concerns or objections to the removal of this prohibition. Allow Military Reservists and National Guardsmen to Temporarily Transfer Annual IFQ This proposed rule would amend IFQ Program regulations to allow military reservists and members of the National Guard to temporarily transfer their halibut or sablefish IFQ to other eligible IFQ recipients, should they be mobilized to active duty. This proposed change is intended to allow reservists and guardsmen the potential to gain some economic benefit from their QS, should they be unavailable to fish their IFQ during a given year due to active military duty or deployment. Specifically, this proposed rule would add a new paragraph to § 679.41 to establish the conditions and criteria for allowing the temporary transfer of annual IFQ issued to reservists and National Guardsmen to other eligible IFQ recipients. Existing QS and IFQ transfer regulations generally do not allow temporary transfers (leasing) of catcher vessel IFQ. Such restrictions are intended to ensure that QS owners also fish the IFQ associated with their quota shares, rather than leasing or otherwise assigning it to other parties to fish on their behalf. Thus, mobilized reservists and guardsmen (who are not otherwise authorized to hire a master to harvest their IFQ) may not temporarily transfer their annual IFQ so that it may be fished by another party. The inability to temporarily transfer IFQs during a military mobilization could constitute an economic hardship to affected service members and their dependents. The Council advised NMFS that it wished to address a long-term solution to situations where QS holders in the military reserves or National Guard are mobilized without any recourse except to leave their annual IFQ allocation unharvested or to sell their quota share. This element was incorporated into the omnibus regulatory amendment that the Council was developing for other IFQ-related actions. The analysis for these regulatory amendments was released for public review in December 2005, followed by final Council action in June 2006, as described previously. This proposed rule would implement the Council's recommendation to allow halibut and sablefish QS holders to request temporary IFQ transfers, if the applicant meets specified requirements related to eligibility and evidence of military mobilization or activation. An application and appeals process would be added to 50 CFR part 679. This proposed regulatory change would not jeopardize the Council's policy of having an owner-operator IFQ fleet. This alternative may further promote stable, owner-operated businesses in the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries. The Council modeled the policy elements associated with temporary military transfers

(TMT)on those associated with emergency medical IFQ transfers. This type of transfer would be limited to guardsmen and reservists that were deemed eligible to make such transfers, based on eligibility criteria established by NMFS. Such criteria would include evidence of active duty military service that would preclude the QS holder from fishing their IFQ during a given time period. A transfer would be temporary because it would be restricted in duration to a given fishing year. Qualified applicants would be required to request a TMT annually, even if the length of their deployment or mobilization exceeded one year. The recipient of IFQ transferred via a TMT would presumably compensate the QS holder for the transferred IFQ, thus allowing QS holders to avoid some of the economic loss associated with their inability to fish their IFQ in a given year. This arrangement would benefit the mobilized QS holder and the temporary recipient of the IFQ. It could also result in a small increase in the use of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program allocations compared with that under the status quo. The active use of IFQ that would otherwise be idled due to a guardsman or reservist's mobilization also would promote economic activity among fishing support industry sectors, and provide structural stability to the Council's “owner-on-board” policy by allowing guardsmen and reservists to retain their QS and resume IFQ fishing following a military deployment. The general benefits associated with TMTs include

(1)providing operational and economic flexibility to fishermen that are subject to valid military orders;

(2)providing an income stream to such fishermen that may sustain them economically and allow their future participation in the IFQ fisheries;

(3)providing an incremental increase in the amount of halibut and sablefish delivered to seafood processors;

(4)sustaining demand for services and supplies from fishing industry support sectors;

(5)ensuring a continued supply of fisheries products derived from the IFQ fishery to consumers; and

(6)ensuring that any associated jobs, value-added production, tax revenues, and other benefits attributable to the economic activity made possible by the temporary transfer of otherwise inactive IFQ are sustained. The application process for a military transfer would be similar to existing transfer applications under the IFQ Program. The application would consist of a form provided by NMFS that also describes the requirements necessary to receive a temporary military transfer. Information collected on these applications would include basic identifying information about the proposed transferor and transferee, documentation of active duty military service, as well as identifying characteristics of the IFQ being transferred. If NMFS denies an application for a TMT, the applicant may appeal the denial according to existing appeal procedures at § 679.43. Administrative Changes This proposed rule would amend certain modifiers (such as “original,” “copy,” and “valid”) that are used to describe some of the different IFQ and CDQ permits that are required in regulations at § 679.4(d) and (e). These paragraphs are associated with halibut IFQ and sablefish IFQ permits, and halibut CDQ permits, respectively. Each of these paragraphs describes the different types of permits required to participate in the IFQ and CDQ fisheries, the activities authorized by different permit types, and other conditions of use, inspection, and validity. These two paragraphs were amended on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44795) to replace the obsolete terms “IFQ card” and “CDQ card” with “IFQ hired master permit” and “CDQ hired master permit,” respectively. This proposed rule would remove the word “original” from the description of IFQ hired master permits in paragraphs § 679.4(d)(2)(ii) and § 679.4(d)(6)(i)(B). This word would be replaced by the term “legible copy.” Regulations at § 679.4(d)(1)(ii) currently require that an “original IFQ hired master permit” must be on board a vessel that harvests halibut IFQ or sablefish IFQ. NMFS intended to change “original” to “legible copy” when it revised this paragraph to replace the term “IFQ card” with “IFQ hired master permit,” as described previously. However, the deletion of the word “original” was inadvertently omitted. The “original on board” requirement is a holdover from a previously removed requirement for IFQ fishermen to have their original, plastic IFQ Landing Card onboard the harvesting vessel. Requiring fishermen to possess an original IFQ hired master permit currently is unnecessary for administrative or enforcement purposes. There are no ready means to distinguish an original hired master permit from a high quality copy. Additionally, NMFS notes that the time necessary to mail or otherwise convey an original IFQ hired master permit to a recipient is often lengthy, given the remote location of many of the Alaska communities to which such permits are sent. Allowing a copy of an IFQ hired master permit to be onboard a vessel would enhance the speed and efficiency of transmitting such permits to IFQ hired masters via facsimile or other electronic formats. Furthermore, this proposed rule would make several other changes to the descriptive language associated with IFQ permits and CDQ hired master permits. The word “copy” associated with IFQ permits would be replaced with the term “legible copy” in paragraphs § 679.4(d)(6)(i)(A) and (B), as well as § 679.4(e)(2). The word “valid” associated with CDQ hired master permits in § 679.4(e)(3) would be replaced with the term “legible copy.” This would provide clarity and consistency for how IFQ permits and CDQ permits are described in § 679.4(d) and

(e)with respect to the need for copies of permits to be legible. Finally, the proposed rule would replace the term “without a CDQ card” with “without a CDQ hired master permit” in a prohibition at § 679.7(f)(6)(iii). As described previously, recent regulatory revisions to 50 CFR part 679 replaced the term “CDQ card” with the term “CDQ hired master permit.” This particular paragraph was inadvertently omitted from those revisions; this proposed rule would correct that omission. Classification Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared for the actions encompassed by this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact that the proposed action, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small entities. A business is considered a small entity if annual gross revenues are less than $4.0 million. A description of each independent action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are presented above in the preamble to this rule. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The objectives of this proposed rule are two-fold. First, it would address the potential economic inefficiencies created by maintaining a mid-season gear closure by allowing longline pot gear to be used to fish for sablefish in the Bering Sea during the month of June. Second, it would allow temporary transfers of IFQ for a specific class of halibut and sablefish QS holders: military reservists and National Guardsmen. This potentially would allow such QS owners to avoid the economic hardship that may be associated with not being able to harvest their annual IFQ if they were mobilized to active duty. Allow Longline Pot Gear to be Used in the Bering Sea Sablefish Fishery in June Two different classes of small entities were identified in the IRFA prepared for the proposed action to remove the longline pot gear restriction in the Bering Sea during June. The first includes holders of Bering Sea sablefish QS. This action may directly affect approximately 115 sablefish QS holders (as of 2006) in the Bering Sea regulatory area. The 2006 ex-vessel value of the sablefish IFQ harvested in the Bering Sea was approximately $4 million. Based on available data, and more general information concerning the probable economic activity of vessels in these IFQ fisheries, no vessel operation subject to the June gear closure restrictions could have been used to land more than $4 million in combined gross receipts in 2006 (the maximum gross revenue threshold for a “small” catcher vessel). Therefore, all sablefish QS holders who would be directly regulated by this proposed action are assumed to be “small entities” for purposes of the IRFA. At present, NMFS does not have sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine precisely the number of “small” entities in the IFQ Program, the subset of Bering Sea sablefish QS holders, or the number of such small entities that could benefit from the proposed removal of a regulatory restriction. The second class of small entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed action includes the six CDQ groups that receive allocations of Bering Sea sablefish CDQ. CDQ groups are non-profit corporations that manage the fisheries allocations and other business matters for communities participating in the CDQ Program. Each of these groups is organized as a not-for-profit entity and none is dominant in its field; consequently, each is a “small entity” under the RFA. An unknown number of vessel operations may choose to use longline pot gear to fish for sablefish in June if the longline pot gear prohibition is removed from regulation. Testimony from participants in this fishery suggests that approximately six vessels may participate. Such vessels may participate in either the IFQ or CDQ sablefish fisheries during the sablefish fishing season. These vessels also may concurrently harvest IFQ and CDQ allocations on the same fishing trip. The IRFA prepared for this proposed action examined two alternatives. Alternative 1, status quo, would maintain the June closure for longline pot gear for the fixed gear sablefish fishery in the Bering Sea. As such, it would continue to impose adverse economic impacts on the small entities currently participating in this fishery, without offsetting benefits. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend regulations to remove the June closure, per the request of participants in the Bering Sea sablefish fishery. This alternative would result in a regulatory change that would reduce economic and operational burdens on those small entities that use longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish fisheries. The sablefish IFQ and CDQ season begins in March and ends in November. Entities that begin harvesting sablefish IFQ or CDQ prior to June, but that do not catch all of their annual sablefish allocation during this time must cease fishing for sablefish with longline pot gear during June, prior to resuming fishing. A June stand-down presumably requires additional costs to entities, such as removing longline pot gear from the fishing grounds, switching to another fishery or to another gear type to continue fishing for sablefish, as well as transit costs to and from fishing grounds. NMFS does not have sufficient cost information to approximate the actual costs associated with the effects of the June closure on entities involved in the longline pot gear for sablefish. No adverse economic impacts on other user groups, including operators of hook-and-line vessels that also are small entities, were identified. Such entities fish concurrently with longline pot gear vessels during the remainder of the IFQ season without reported gear or fishing grounds conflicts. NMFS is not aware of any additional alternatives to those considered that would accomplish the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes and that would minimize the adverse economic impact of the proposed action on small entities. The objective for this action was to relieve an operational restriction, and associated adverse economic effects, by eliminating a one month fishery closure that is specific to longline pot gear vessels. The original impetus for the June longline pot gear closure has been superceded by ongoing changes in the characteristics of the sablefish IFQ and CDQ fisheries; specifically, the increased use of longline pot gear to prosecute this fishery and the decreased use of hook-and-line gear. Allow Military Reservists and National Guard Members to Temporarily Transfer Annual IFQ This proposed action would amend regulations in 50 CFR part 679 that govern quota transfers conducted under the Pacific Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. Existing regulations allow permanent QS and IFQ transfers, but preclude temporary transfers of IFQ except for limited circumstances. At present, NMFS does not have sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine precisely the number of “small” entities in the IFQ program that could be affected by this action. The number of military reservists or guardsmen that hold the category of QS that may not be legally fished by a hired master under current rules cannot be determined with available information. The number of these “citizen soldiers” who hold such restricted QS and who may be mobilized to active duty status during their fishing career cannot be estimated. Given these uncertainties, it is not possible to know how many QS holders could be expected to request a temporary military transfer of IFQs, if the proposed rule were adopted. Thus, the IRFA prepared for this action assumes that all halibut and sablefish QS holders are small entities, for RFA purposes. Based on this assumption, the proposed action has the potential to directly regulate any of the 3,467 small entities (as of 2006) that hold halibut QS and sablefish QS. The IRFA prepared for this action examined two alternatives. Under Alternative 1, mobilized military reservists or guardsmen would not be able to temporarily transfer their IFQ. This could impose a financial burden on such QS holders because they would have to forego the economic benefit that could accrue from leasing their IFQ to other fishermen. It is not possible to quantify what such foregone benefits could be, absent information about how many reservists and guardsmen hold QS, whether and when such persons could be mobilized, and the amount of annual IFQ that could be left unharvested due to a QS holder being unable to catch their IFQ. Based on the standard prices used to assess IFQ fees (for all ports with IFQ landings, as of November 30, 2007), halibut was worth $4.37 per pound and sablefish was worth $2.95 per pound. This approximates the value of each pound of halibut and sablefish IFQ to those QS holders whose harvesting operations could be affected by being mobilized ordered to active duty. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend regulations to explicitly allow temporary IFQ transfers for mobilized guardsmen and reservists. This would decrease the likelihood that such QS holder would suffer economic hardship from being unable to catch his or her halibut or sablefish IFQ. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would minimize adverse impacts that may be attributable to idled IFQ that could accrue to processors, fishery dependent communities, and other fishing support businesses. However, absent information about the number of QS holders that could be affected by this change, as well as the amount of QS and corresponding IFQ that could be left unharvested, NMFS is unable to provide an estimate of such impacts. NMFS is not aware of any additional alternatives to those considered that would accomplish the objectives of the Halibut Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes that would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The objective of this action is to relax the policy of requiring halibut and sablefish QS holders to be onboard a vessel when associated IFQ is caught and landed for a specific class of QS holders. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been submitted under OMB Control No. 0648-0569. Public reporting burden for Application for Temporary Military Transfer of IFQ is estimated to average two hours per response and four hours per response for appeal of a denied application, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region at the ADDRESSES above, and e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to

(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: February 28, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* ; 1801 *et seq.* ; 3631 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 108-447. 2. In § 679.4, revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (d)(6)(i)(A), (d)(6)(i)(B), (e)(2), and (e)(3) to read as follows: § 679.4 Permits.

(d)* * *

(2)* * *

(ii)A legible copy of an IFQ hired master permit issued to an eligible individual in accordance with § 679.42(i) and

(j)by the Regional Administrator must be onboard the vessel that harvests IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish at all times that such fish are retained on board by a hired master. Except as specified in § 679.42(d), an individual that is issued an IFQ hired master permit must remain on board the vessel used to harvest IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish with that IFQ hired master permit during the IFQ fishing trip and at the landing site during all IFQ landings.

(6)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)The IFQ permit holder must present a legible copy of the IFQ permit for inspection on request of any authorized officer or Registered Buyer receiving IFQ species.

(B)The IFQ hired master permit holder must present a legible copy of the IFQ permit and a legible copy of a the IFQ hired master permit for inspection on request of any authorized officer or Registered Buyer receiving IFQ species.

(e)* * *

(2)*Halibut CDQ permit.* The CDQ group must obtain a halibut CDQ permit issued by the Regional Administrator. The vessel operator must have a legible copy of the halibut CDQ permit on any fishing vessel operated by, or for, a CDQ group that will have halibut CDQ onboard and must make the permit available for inspection by an authorized officer. The halibut CDQ permit is non-transferable and is issued annually until revoked, suspended, or modified.

(3)*Halibut CDQ hired master permits.* An individual must have onboard the vessel a legible copy of the halibut CDQ hired master permit issued by the Regional Administrator before landing any CDQ halibut. Each halibut CDQ hired master permit will identify a CDQ permit number and the individual authorized by the CDQ group to land halibut for debit against the CDQ group's halibut CDQ. 3. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (f)(6)(iii) to read as follows: § 679.7 Prohibitions.

(f)* * *

(6)* * *

(iii)*Hired master, CDQ halibut.* Make a CDQ halibut landing without a CDQ hired master permit listing the name of the hired master. 4. In § 679.24, revise paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows: § 679.24 Gear limitations.

(c)* * *

(4)*BSAI.* Operators of vessels using gear types other than hook-and-line, longline pot, pot-and-line, or trawl gear in the BSAI must treat sablefish as a prohibited species as provided by § 679.21(b). 5. In § 679.41, revise paragraph (g)(4) and add paragraph

(m)to read as follows: § 679.41 Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.

(g)* * *

(4)The Regional Administrator will not approve an Application for Transfer of QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D subject to a lease or any other condition of repossession or resale by the person transferring QS, except as provided in paragraphs

(h)and

(m)of this section, or by court order, operation of law, or as part of a security agreement. The Regional Administrator may request a copy of the sales contract or other terms and conditions of transfer between two persons as supplementary information to the transfer application.

(m)*Temporary military transfers.* In the event of a military mobilization or order to report for military service affecting a QS holder that prevents him or her from being able to participate in the halibut or sablefish IFQ fisheries, the Regional Administrator may approve a temporary military transfer for the IFQ derived from the QS held by a QS holder affected by the military mobilization.

(1)*General.* A temporary military transfer will be approved if the QS holder demonstrates that he or she is unable to participate in the IFQ fishery for which he or she holds QS because of a military mobilization, order to report for military service, or active duty military service.

(2)*Eligibility.* To be eligible to receive a temporary military transfer, a QS holder must:

(i)Be a member of a branch of the National Guard or a member of a reserve component;

(ii)Possess one or more catcher vessel IFQ permits;

(iii)Not qualify for a hired master exception under § 679.42(i)(1); and

(iv)Be in active duty military service as that term is defined at 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1), be under a call to active service authorized by the President or the Secretary for a period of more than 30 consecutive days under 32 U.S.C. 502(f), or in the case of a member of a reserve component, have been ordered to report for military service beginning on the date of the member's receipt of the order and ending on the date on which the member reports for active duty military service.

(3)*Application.* A QS holder may apply for a temporary military transfer by submitting a temporary military transfer application to the Alaska Region, NMFS. NMFS will transfer, upon approval of the application, the applicable IFQ from the applicant (transferor) to the recipient (transferee). A temporary military transfer application is available at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* or by calling 1-800-304-4846. A complete application must include all of the following:

(i)The transferor's identity including his or her full name, NMFS person ID, date of birth, permanent business mailing address, business telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address (if any). A temporary mailing address may be provided, if appropriate.

(ii)The transferee's identity including his or her full name, NMFS person ID, date of birth, permanent business mailing address, business telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address (if any). A temporary mailing address may be provided, if appropriate.

(iii)The identification characteristics of the IFQ including whether the transfer is for halibut or sablefish IFQ, IFQ regulatory area, number of units, range of serial numbers for IFQ to be transferred, actual number of IFQ pounds, transferor (seller) IFQ permit number, and fishing year.

(iv)Documentation of active military mobilization or deployment. This documentation must include the following:

(A)A copy of official documentation such as valid military orders or call that direct the transferor to report to active duty military service, to mobilize for a military deployment, or to report to active service.

(B)A concise description of the nature of the military deployment or active duty military service, including verification that the applicant is unable to participate in the IFQ fishery for which he or she holds IFQ permits during the IFQ season because of his/her active duty military service.

(v)The signatures and printed names of the transferor and transferee, and date.

(vi)The signature, seal, and commission expiration of a notary public.

(4)*Restrictions.*

(i)A temporary military transfer shall be valid only during the calendar year for which the associated IFQ is issued.

(ii)A temporary military transfer will be issued only for the IFQ derived from the QS held by the applicant.

(5)*Temporary military transfer evaluations and appeals* —(i) *Initial evaluation.* The Regional Administrator will evaluate an application for a temporary military transfer submitted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this section. An applicant who fails to submit the information specified in the application for a temporary military transfer will be provided a reasonable opportunity to submit the specified information or submit a revised application.

(ii)*Initial administrative determination (IAD).* The Regional Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant if the Regional Administrator determines that the application provided by the applicant is deficient or if the applicant fails to submit the specified information or a revised application. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies in the application, including any deficiencies with the information on the revised application. An applicant who receives an IAD may appeal under the appeals procedures set out at § 679.43. [FR Doc. E8-4247 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 44 Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-FV-08-0006; FV-08-377] Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)announces the availability of approximately $8,440,500 in block grant funds, less USDA administrative costs, to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. State departments of agriculture interested in obtaining grant program funds are invited to submit applications to USDA. State departments of agriculture, meaning agencies, commissions, or departments of a State government responsible for agriculture within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are eligible to apply. State departments of agriculture are encouraged to involve industry groups, academia, and community-based organizations in the development of applications and the administration of projects. DATES: Applications must be postmarked not later than March 5, 2009. ADDRESSES: Applications may be sent to: SCBGP, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0235, Room 2077 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-0235. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trista Etzig, Phone:

(202)690-4942, e-mail: *trista.etzig@usda.gov* or your State department of agriculture listed on the SCBGP Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SCBGP is authorized under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note) and is implemented under 7 CFR part 1290 (published September 11, 2007; 71 FR 53303). The SCBGP assists State departments of agriculture in enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. specialty crops. Specialty crops are defined as fruits and vegetables, dried fruit, tree nuts, and nursery crops (including floriculture). Examples of enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crops include, but are not limited to: Research, promotion, marketing, nutrition, trade enhancement, food safety, food security, plant health programs, education, “buy local” programs, increased consumption, increased innovation, improved efficiency and reduced costs of distribution systems, environmental concerns and conservation, product development, and developing cooperatives. Each interested State department of agriculture is to submit an application anytime before March 5, 2009 to the USDA contact noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. AMS will work with each State department of agriculture and provide assistance as necessary. State departments of agriculture who did not previously apply for fiscal year 2007 grant funds should submit an application postmarked not later than April 11, 2008 to qualify for receiving fiscal year 2007 grant funds. State departments of agriculture who wish to apply for both fiscal year 2007 and 2008 grant funds at the same time should submit one application postmarked not later than April 11, 2008. To apply for only fiscal year 2008 funds, State departments of agriculture should submit an application postmarked not later than March 5, 2009. Other organizations interested in participating in this program should contact their State Department of Agriculture. State departments of agriculture specifically named under the authorizing legislation should assume the lead role in SCBGP projects, and use cooperative or contractual linkages with other agencies, universities, institutions, and producer, industry or community-based organizations as appropriate. Additional details about the SCBGP application process for all applicants are available at the SCBGP Web site: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/* . To be eligible for a grant, each State department of agriculture's application shall be clear and succinct and include the following documentation satisfactory to AMS:

(a)Completed applications must include an SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance”.

(b)Completed applications must include one State plan to show how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. State departments of agriculture which did not previously apply for grant funds under the program should submit one State plan postmarked not later than April 11, 2008 for both fiscal year 2007 and 2008 grant funds. SCBGP grant funds will be awarded for projects of up to 3 years duration. An application that builds on a previously funded SCBGP project may also be submitted. In such cases, the State plan should indicate clearly how the project complements previous work. The State plan shall include the following:

(1)*Cover Page.* Include the lead agency for administering the plan and an abstract of 200 words or less for each proposed project.

(2)*Project Purpose.* Clearly state the specific issue, problem, interest, or need to be addressed. Explain why each project is important and timely.

(3)*Potential Impact.* Discuss the number of people or operations affected, the intended beneficiaries of each project, and/or potential economic impact if such data are available and relevant to the project(s).

(4)*Financial Feasibility.* For each project, provide budget estimates for the total project cost. When submitting one State plan for both fiscal year 2007 and 2008 grant funds, identify which fiscal year funding is utilized for each project. If a project uses funds from both fiscal years, identify the amount of each fiscal year's funding. Also, indicate what percentage of the budget covers administrative costs. Administrative costs should not exceed 10 percent of any proposed budget. Provide a justification if administrative costs are higher than 10 percent.

(5)*Expected Measurable Outcomes.* Describe at least two distinct, quantifiable, and measurable outcomes that directly and meaningfully support each project's purpose. The outcome measures must define an event or condition that is external to the project and that is of direct importance to the intended beneficiaries and/or the public.

(6)*Goal(s).* Describe the overall goal(s) in one or two sentences for each project.

(7)*Work Plan.* Explain briefly how each goal and measurable outcome will be accomplished for each project. Be clear about who will do the work. Include appropriate time lines. Expected measurable outcomes may be long term that exceed the grant period. If so, provide a timeframe when long term outcome measure will be achieved.

(8)*Project Oversight.* Describe the oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grant activities to ensure proper and efficient administration.

(9)*Project Commitment.* Describe how all grant partners commit to and work toward the goals and outcome measures of the proposed project(s).

(10)*Multi-State Projects.* If a project is a multi-state project, describe how the States are going to collaborate effectively with related projects. Each State participating in the project should submit the project in their State plan indicating which State is taking the coordinating role and the percent of the budget covered by each State. Each State department of agriculture that submits an application that is reviewed and approved by AMS is to receive $100,000 to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. In addition, AMS will allocate the remainder of the grant funds based on the proportion of the value of specialty crop production in the State in relation to the national value of specialty crop production using the latest available (2006 National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)cash receipt data for the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) specialty crop production data in all States whose applications are accepted. The amount of the base grant plus value of production available to each State department of agriculture shall be:

(1)Alabama $118,638.61

(2)Alaska 101,098.05

(3)Arizona 159,294.43

(4)Arkansas 105,096.06

(5)California 1,228,396.09

(6)Colorado 135,841.32

(7)Connecticut 116,864.85

(8)Delaware 104,504.80

(9)District of Columbia 100,000.00

(10)Florida 372,568.56

(11)Georgia 162,532.26

(12)Hawaii 117,906.58

(13)Idaho 148,201.36

(14)Illinois 123,537.58

(15)Indiana 118,300.75

(16)Iowa 106,194.10

(17)Kansas 104,504.80

(18)Kentucky 105,771.78

(19)Louisiana 110,867.83

(20)Maine 114,612.45

(21)Maryland 123,087.10

(22)Massachusetts 116,583.30

(23)Michigan 174,976.77

(24)Minnesota 126,184.15

(25)Mississippi 107,038.75

(26)Missouri 108,784.36

(27)Montana 105,462.07

(28)Nebraska 108,530.97

(29)Nevada 102,899.97

(30)New Hampshire 104,561.11

(31)New Jersey 137,755.86

(32)New Mexico 114,950.31

(33)New York 164,953.59

(34)North Carolina 178,439.83

(35)North Dakota 118,582.30

(36)Ohio 149,552.80

(37)Oklahoma 113,598.87

(38)Oregon 201,780.33

(39)Pennsylvania 158,590.56

(40)Puerto Rico 114,894.00

(41)Rhode Island 102,871.81

(42)South Carolina 121,848.28

(43)South Dakota 101,745.61

(44)Tennessee 123,396.81

(45)Texas 213,830.67

(46)Utah 105,687.31

(47)Vermont 102,787.35

(48)Virginia 123,565.74

(49)Washington 287,906.47

(50)West Virginia 100,563.10

(51)Wisconsin 144,090.73

(52)Wyoming 101,266.98 Applicants submitting hard copy applications should submit one copy of the application package. The SF-424 must be signed (with an original signature) by an official who has authority to apply for Federal assistance. Hard copy applications should be sent only via express mail to AMS at the address noted at the beginning of this notice because USPS mail sent to Washington DC headquarters is sanitized, resulting in possible delays, loss, and physical damage to enclosures. AMS will send an e-mail confirmation when applications arrive at the AMS office. Applicants who submit hard copy applications are also encouraged to submit electronic versions of their applications directly to AMS via e-mail addressed to *scblockgrants@usda.gov* in one of the following formats: Word (*.doc); or Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf). Alternatively, a standard 3.5″ HD diskette or a CD may be enclosed with the hard copy application. Applicants also have the option of submitting SCBGP applications electronically through the central Federal grants Web site, *http://www.grants.gov* instead of mailing hard copy documents. Applicants considering the electronic application option are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the Federal grants Web site and begin the application process well before the application deadline. SCBGP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 10.169 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all federally assisted programs. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 note. Dated: February 28, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-4234 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-800-1610-DP 016C] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Extension of Comment Period for the Draft San Juan Land Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of Comment Period Extension. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)and Forest Service

(FS)are announcing an extension of the comment period on the Draft Land Management Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DLMP/DEIS) for the public and National Forest System Lands under their jurisdiction and by this notice is announcing the extension of the comment period. The original notice published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2007 [72 FR 71148] and provided for a comment period to end on March 12, 2007. DATES: The BLM and FS are extending the comment period for 30 days ending on April 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Draft LMP/DEIS is posted on the Internet at *http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestPlan* . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Web site:* *http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestPlan* . • *Facsimile:*

(916)456-6724. • *Mail:* LMP Comments, San Juan Plan Revision, P.O. Box 162909, Sacramento, California 95816-2909. Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the San Juan Public Lands Center, and will be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Manfredi, Planning Team Leader at San Juan Public Land Center. Phone:

(970)385-1229. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original Notice of Availability provided for comments on the Draft LMP/EIS to be received through March 12, 2008. The BLM and FS received requests for an extension of the comment period from individuals and groups. The BLM and FS are agreeing with these requests. Comments on the Draft Land Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will now be accepted through April 11, 2008. Dated: February 26, 2008. Dave Hunsaker, Acting State Director, BLM. Dated: February 26, 2008. Randall Karstaedt, Director of Physical Resources, Region 2, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E8-4264 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DK-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Middle Fork Popo Agie River Watershed, Fremont County, WY AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). ACTION: Rescind notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Middle Fork Popo Agie River Watershed, Fremont County, Wyoming. SUMMARY: The Natural Resources Conservation Service is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the notice of intent

(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)on a proposal to address recurring flooding impacts along the Middle Fork Popo Agie River in and near the city of Lander, Fremont County, Wyoming, which was issued in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 228). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay T. Mar, Assistant State Conservationist—Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 100 East B Street, Room 3124, P.O. Box 33124, Casper, Wyoming 82602-5011, telephone

(307)233-6757. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRCS is rescinding the NOI to prepare an EIS for a project proposed to address recurring flooding impacts along the Middle Fork Popo Agie River in and near the city of Lander, Fremont County, Wyoming. The NOI is being rescinded because preliminary analysis of the proposed alternative indicates that impacts are likely not to be significant. NRCS has therefore determined an Environmental Assessment

(EA)will be appropriate for this project. Dated: February 25, 2008. Jay T. Mar, Assistant State Conservationist—Programs. (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under NO. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials.) [FR Doc. E8-4265 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Norborne Baseload Plant AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Termination of Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development or the Agency, is terminating further action by Rural Development on the environmental review process in accordance with the Agency's environmental policies and procedures for the Norborne Baseload Plant (Norborne Plant) in Carroll County, Missouri. The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)was to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of and alternatives to Associated Electric Cooperative, Incorporated's

(AECI)application requesting federal financial assistance from Rural Development to construct the proposed 660 megawatt net supercritical pulverized coal fired power plant, new and modified substations, approximately 134 miles of new 345-kV transmission lines, a utility waste landfill, new rail access from existing mainline railroads, and a water supply system consisting of groundwater wells and associated pipeline. The AECI withdrew their application for federal financial assistance from the Agency on February 12, 2008, and has decided to evaluate non-federal financing options. The notice to prepare an EIS and to hold scoping meetings was published in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 2005. Four public scoping meetings were conducted in August of 2005. In addition, the Agency held an interagency scoping meeting with state and federal agency stakeholders on August 23, 2005. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on January 11, 2007 with the 45-day public comment period beginning on the date the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published their receipt of the document. The USEPA's notice was published on January 26, 2007 and the public review period concluded on March 12, 2007. Three public hearings to solicit review comments were held between February 6-8, 2007. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2007 with a 30-day public comment period. The comment period was extended to October 28, 2005 through a second notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 30, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Stephanie A. Strength, USDA, Rural Development Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 1570, Room 2244, Washington, DC 20250-1570, telephone

(202)720-0468, fax

(202)720-0820, or e-mail: *Stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov.* Dated: February 28, 2008. James R. Newby, Assistant Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E8-4229 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. Pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 *et seq.* ), the Economic Development Administration

(EDA)has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment [February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008] Firm Address Date accepted for filing Products John J. Steuby Company 6002 N. Lindbergh, Hazelwood, MO 63042 1/4/08 Hardware to domestic markets. Custom Manufacturing And Engineering 7582 4th Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 1/7/08 Designs and manufactures thermoplastic injections molded parts for the consumer and promotional goods. The Toy Works, Inc 101 Fiddler's Elbow Road, Middle Falls, NY 12848 2/4/08 Hand printed gifts including doormats and door stops, kitchen textiles, mugs, decorative flags, canvas totes and decorative pillows. Erisco Industries, Inc 1133 West 18th Street, Erie, PA 16502 2/4/08 Erisco produces steel wire and wire components. Dasco Pro, Inc 340 Blackhawk Park Ave, Rockford, IL 61104 2/4/08 Manufacturing of hand and hand struck tools cast or machined from steel and steel carbides. Young Furniture Manufacturing, Inc 35 River Road, Bow, NH 03304 12/18/07 Manufactures unfinished cabinetry, casework and built-ins on a custom basis. A La Carte Foods, Inc 278 Ideal Street, Paincourt, LA 70391 12/11/07 Raw seafood products, condiments and packaging. CenTex, Inc 1301 N. Old Hwy 77 and 81 S., Hillsboro, TX 76645 12/7/07 Processes and delints agricultural seed for commercial use. Cable Manufacturing & Assembly Company, Inc 10896 Industrial Parkway, NW, Bolivar, OH 44612 10/26/07 Stranded cables, less than 3/8″ diameter, of steel and stainless steel. AFC Stamping and Production 4900 Webster Street, Dayton, OH 45414 12/21/07 Metal stampings for the motor vehicle, appliance, medical device and other. Scenic Fruit, Inc 7510 SE. Altman Road, Gresham, OR 97080 12/27/07 Frozen blackberries. Carlton Company 3901 SE. NAEF Road, Milwaukie, OR 97268 2/3/08 Chain saw blades and parts, of base metal, not continuous lengths. Denver Rubber Company 2340 W. 2nd Avenue, Denver, CO 80223 1/31/08 Manufactured products include squeeze assemblies, gaskets and industrial hose. Import impacted articles are gaskets and industrial hoses. Metal West 1229 South Fulton Avenue, Brighton, CO 80601 1/17/08 Manufactures flat-rolled metal products. Special Product Company 8540 Hedge Lane Terrace Shawnee, KS 66227-3200 12/20/08 Aluminum housings for telecommunication equipment. Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Performance Evaluation, Room 7009, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten

(10)calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in section 315.9 of EDA's final rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. Dated: February 28, 2008. William P. Kittredge, Program Officer for TAA. [FR Doc. E8-4209 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [Docket No. 990813222-0035-03] RIN 0625-AA55 Office of Insular Affairs; Allocation of Duty-Exemptions for Calendar Year 2008 Among Watch Producers Located in the United States Virgin Islands AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce; Office of Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This action allocates calendar year 2008 duty exemptions for watch producers located in the Virgin Islands pursuant to Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, Public Law 106-36 and Public Law 108-429 (``the Act''). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Faye Robinson,

(202)482-3526. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Act, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce (the Departments) share responsibility for the allocation of duty exemptions among watch assembly firms in the United States insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands. In accordance with section 303.3(a) of the regulations (15 CFR 303.3(a)), the total quantity of duty-free insular watches and watch movements for calendar year 2008 is 1,866,000 units for the Virgin Islands (65 FR 8048, February 17, 2000). The criteria for the calculation of calendar year 2008 duty-exemption allocations among insular watch producers are set forth in section 303.14 of the regulations (15 CFR 303.14). The Departments have verified and adjusted the data submitted on application form ITA-334P by U.S. Virgin Islands producers and inspected their current operations in accordance with Section 303.5 of the regulations (15 CFR 303.5). In calendar year 2007 the Virgin Islands watch assembly firms shipped 243,070 watches and watch movements into the customs territory of the United States under the Act. The dollar amount of creditable corporate income taxes paid by Virgin Islands producers during calendar year 2007 plus the creditable wages paid by the industry during calendar year 2007 to residents of the territory was $2,043,408. There are no producers in Guam, American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands. The calendar year 2008 Virgin Islands annual allocations, based on the data verified by the Departments, are as follows: Name of firm Annual allocation Belair Quartz, Inc 500,000 Hampden Watch Co., Inc 200,000 Tropex, Inc 200,000 The balance of the units allocated to the Virgin Islands is available for new entrants into the program or producers who request a supplement to their allocation. Dated: February 28, 2008. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Department of Commerce. Tom Bussanich, Acting Director, Office of Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior. [FR Doc. 08-939 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 20

Traces to 20 documents