Notices. Notice

55,873 words·~254 min read·/register/2008/03/10/08-999

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

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects *Title:* Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy Program Performance Report. *OMB No.:* 0980-0160. *Description:* This information collection is required by federal statute. Each State Protection and Advocacy System must prepare and submit a Program Performance Report for the preceding fiscal year of activities and accomplishments and of conditions in the State.

The information in the Annual Report will be aggregated into a national profile of Protection and Advocacy Systems. It will also provide Administration on Developmental Disabilities

(ADD)with an overview of program trends and achievements and will enable ADD to respond to administration and congressional requests for specific information on program activities. This information will also be used to submit a Biennial Report to Congress as well as to comply with requirements in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. *Respondents:* Protection & Advocacy Agencies. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy Program Performance Report 57 1 44 2,508 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,508. In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: March 3, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4403 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration

(HRSA)(60 FR 56605-56606 as amended November 6, 1995; and as last amended at 73 FR 4877, dated January 28, 2008.) This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions (RP). Specifically, this notice updates the mission statement of the Bureau of Health Professions

(RP)and updates the functional statements of the Bureau of Health Professions. Chapter RP, Office of the Administrator Section RP, 00 Mission Delete in its entirety and replace with the following: Increase the population's access to health care by providing national leadership in the development, distribution and retention of a diverse, culturally competent health workforce that can adapt to the population's changing health care needs and provide the highest quality of care for all. Section RP-10, Organization Delete in its entirety and replace with the following: The Bureau of Health Professions

(BHPr)is headed by an Associate Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Bureau of Health Professions includes the following components:

(1)Office of the Associate Administrator (RP);

(2)Office of Shortage Designation (RP2);

(3)Office of Workforce Policy and Performance Management (RP3);

(4)Division of Nursing (RPB);

(5)Division of Medicine and Dentistry (RPC);

(6)Division of Student Loans and Scholarships (RPD);

(7)Division of Diversity and Interdisciplinary Education (RPF); and

(8)Division of Practitioner Data Banks (RPG). Section RP-20, Functions Delete the functional statement for the Bureau of Health Professions

(RP)in its entirety and replace it with the following: Bureau of Health Professions

(RP)Provides national leadership in coordinating, evaluating, and supporting the development and utilization of the Nation's health personnel. Specifically:

(1)Directs the national health professions education, student assistance, and development programs and activities;

(2)provides policy guidance and staff direction to the Bureau;

(3)maintains liaison with other Federal and non-Federal organizations and agencies with health personnel development interest and responsibilities;

(4)provides guidance and direction for technical assistance activities in the international aspects of health personnel development;

(5)provides guidance and assistance to the Regional Health Administrators or regional staff as appropriate;

(6)directs and coordinates Bureau programs in support of Equal Employment Opportunity;

(7)coordinates and provides guidance on the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act activities;

(8)plans, directs, coordinates, and evaluates Bureau-wide administrative management activities; and

(9)serves as the Bureau's focal point for correspondence control. Office of Shortage Designation

(RP2)Provides national leadership and management of the designation of health professional shortage areas and medically-underserved populations. Specifically:

(1)Maintains and enhances the Agency's critical role in the Nation's efforts to address equitable distribution of health professionals and access to health care for underserved populations;

(2)encourages and fosters an ongoing, positive working relationship with other Federal, State and private sector partners regarding health professional shortage areas and medically-underserved populations;

(3)approves designation requests and finalizes designation policies and procedures for both current and proposed designation criteria;

(4)negotiates and approves State designation agreements (e.g., use of databases, population estimates, Statewide Rational Service Areas); and

(5)oversees grants to State primary care offices. Office of Workforce Policy and Performance Management

(RP3)Serves as the Bureau focal point for program planning, evaluation, coordination, and analysis, including analysis and operations review of Information Management systems; health professions data analysis and research; and for health professions quality assurance efforts. Maintains liaison with governmental, professional, voluntary, and other public and private organizations, institutions, and groups for the purpose of providing information exchange. Specifically the office is responsible for the following activities:

(1)Stimulates, guides, and coordinates program planning, reporting, and evaluation activities of the Divisions and staff offices;

(2)provides staff services to the Associate Administrator for program and strategic planning and its relation to the budgetary and regulatory processes;

(3)develops issue papers and Congressional reports relating to Bureau programs;

(4)coordinates the development and implementation of the Bureau's evaluation program;

(5)coordinates Bureau performance measurement and reporting;

(6)sponsors and conducts research, special studies, and forecasting models on important issues that affect the national, State and local health workforce including studies relevant to current and future policies of the Bureau and their impact on the supply and demand for health professionals and the health industry at large;

(7)provides technical assistance to States, educational institutions, professional associations and other Federal agencies relative to health personnel analytical information and analysis; and

(8)develops and coordinates the Bureau data collection and modeling in conjunction with other entities involved in data collection and analysis, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Administration on Aging (AOA). Division of Nursing

(RPB)Serves as the principal focus for nursing education and practice. Specifically:

(1)Provides national leadership and professional nursing expertise in the areas of policy development, budget, planning, coordination, evaluation and utilization of nursing personnel resources;

(2)serves, on behalf of the Secretary, as the Chair of the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice;

(3)supports and conducts programs which address the development, supply, utilization, and quality of nursing personnel;

(4)promotes the involvement of States and communities in developing and administering nursing programs and assists States and communities in improving nursing services and educational programs;

(5)encourages coordination of nursing-related issues within and across Departmental entities;

(6)facilitates coordination of nursing-related issues with other governmental agencies and consults with them on national or international nursing workforce planning and development issues;

(7)maintains liaison with external health professional groups, the academic community, consumers, and State and community groups with a common interest in the Nation's capacity to deliver nursing services;

(8)advances and promotes the development of effective models of nursing practice and education;

(9)stimulates initiatives in the area of international nursing information exchange and nursing workforce planning and development; and

(10)provides overall direction and management to the Division for both human and financial resources. Division of Medicine and Dentistry

(RPC)Serves as the principal focus with regard to education, practice, and research of health personnel, with special emphasis on allopathic and osteopathic physicians, podiatrists, dentists, physician assistants and clinical psychologists. Specifically:

(1)Provides professional expertise in the direction and leadership required by the Bureau for planning, coordinating, evaluating, and supporting development and utilization of the Nation's health personnel for these professions;

(2)supports and conducts programs with respect to the need for and the development, use, credentialing, and distribution of such personnel;

(3)engages with other Bureau programs in cooperative efforts of research, development, and demonstration on the interrelationships between the members of the health care team, their tasks, education requirements, training modalities, credentialing and practice;

(4)conducts and supports studies and evaluations of physician, dentist, physician assistant, podiatrist and clinical psychologist personnel requirements, distribution and availability, and cooperates with other components of the Bureau and Agency in such studies;

(5)analyzes and interprets physician, dental, physician assistant, podiatrist and clinical psychologist programmatic data collected from a variety of sources;

(6)conducts, supports, or obtains analytical studies to determine the present and future supply and requirements of physicians, dentists, physician assistants, podiatrists and clinical psychologists by specialty and geographic location, including the linkages between their training and practice characteristics;

(7)conducts and supports studies to determine potential national goals for the training and distribution of physicians in graduate medical education programs and develops alternative strategies to accomplish these goals;

(8)supports and conducts programs with respect to activities associated with the international migration, domestic training, and utilization of foreign medical graduates and U.S. citizens studying abroad;

(9)maintains liaison with relevant health professional groups and others, including consumers, having common interest in the Nation's capacity to deliver health services;

(10)provides consultation and technical assistance to public and private organizations, agencies, and institutions, including Regional Offices, other agencies of the Federal Government, and international agencies and foreign governments on all aspects of the Division's functions;

(11)provides administrative and staff support for the Advisory Committee on Training and Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry and for the Council on Graduate Medical Education;

(12)represents the Bureau, Agency and Federal Government, as designated, on national committees and/or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME);

(13)administers support programs for the development, improvement, and the operation of general, pediatric, and public health dental educational programs;

(14)designs, administers and supports activities relating to dentists;

(15)provides technical assistance and consultation to grantee institutions and other governmental and private organizations on the operation of these educational programs;

(16)promotes the dissemination and application of findings arising from programs supported;

(17)develops congressional and other mandated or special program-specific reports and publications on dental educational processes, programs and approaches; and

(18)promotes, plans, and develops collaborative educational activities in clinical psychology. Division of Student Loans and Scholarships

(RPD)Serves as the focal point for overseeing loan and scholarship programs supporting health professionals. Specifically:

(1)Directs and administers the Health Professions and Nursing Student Loan and Scholarship Programs, the Federal Assistance to Disadvantaged Health Professions Scholarship Program, the Health Educational Assistance Loan Program, the Primary Care Loan Program, and the Nurse Faculty Loan Program;

(2)monitors and assesses educational and financial institutions with respect to capabilities and management of Federal support for students and of tracking of obligatory service requirements;

(3)develops and conducts training activities for staff of educational and financial institutions;

(4)maintains liaison with and provides assistance to program-related public and private professional organizations and institutions;

(5)maintains liaison with the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Inspector General, DHHS, components of the Department of Education and the Department of Defense, and State agencies concerning student assistance;

(6)coordinates financial aspects of programs with educational institutions; and

(7)develops program data needs, formats, and reporting requirements, including collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of data. Division of Diversity and Interdisciplinary Education

(RPF)Serves as the principal focal point for interdisciplinary health professions issues and programs, including geriatric training, and for activities to increase the diversity of the health professional workforce. Specifically:

(1)Provides leadership and direction for the development and implementation of Bureau objectives as they relate to diverse and disadvantaged populations;

(2)develops and recommends health resources and health career opportunities for diverse and disadvantaged populations;

(3)initiates, stimulates, supports, coordinates, and evaluates Bureau programs for improving the availability and accessibility of health careers for diverse and disadvantaged populations;

(4)conducts special studies and collects baseline data to identify specific factors contributing to the health and health-related problems of diverse and disadvantaged populations, and to develop strategies for improving health services and career opportunities for diverse and disadvantaged populations;

(5)conducts extramural programs, including the use of grants and contracts, specifically designed to promote equity in access to health careers;

(6)promotes, designs, supports and administers activities relating to the planning and development of nationally integrated health professions education programs;

(7)promotes, plans and develops collaborative, interdisciplinary activities in the specialty areas of behavioral/mental health, rural health, geriatrics and the associated health professions, and other new and developing health disciplines;

(8)promotes quality improvement in health professions education through collaboration and partnerships with national and international institutes and centers for quality improvement;

(9)promotes and supports academic-community partnerships whose goal is the development of interdisciplinary, community-based programs designed to improve access to health care through improving the quality of health professions education and training;

(10)serves as the Federal focus for the development and improvement of education for professional public health, preventive medicine, environmental health, and health administration practice, including undergraduate, graduate, and continuing professional development; and

(11)provides administrative and staff support for the Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages. Division of Practitioner Data Banks

(RPG)Coordinates with the Department and other Federal entities, State licensing boards, and national, State and local professional organizations to promote quality assurance efforts and deter fraud and abuse by administering the National Practitioner Data Bank

(NPDB)as authorized under Title IV of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and Section 5 of the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, and administering the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB) for the Office of Inspector General. Specifically:

(1)Maintains active consultative relations with professional organizations, societies, and Federal agencies involved in the NPDB and HIPDB;

(2)develops, proposes and monitors efforts for

(a)credentials assessment, granting of privileges, and monitoring and evaluating programs for physicians, dentists, and other health care professionals including quality assurance,

(b)professional review of specified medical events in the health care system including quality assurance, and

(c)risk management and utilization reviews;

(3)encourages and supports evaluation and demonstration projects and research concerning quality assurance, medical liability and malpractice;

(4)conducts and supports research based on NPDB and HIPDB information;

(5)works with the Secretary's office to provide technical assistance to States undertaking malpractice reform; and

(6)maintains liaison with the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Inspector General, HHS concerning practitioner licensing and data bank issues. Section RC-30, Delegations of Authority All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation. This reorganization is effective upon the date of signature. Dated: February 19, 2008. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4601 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 25, 2008, 9 a.m. to March 26, 2008, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the **Federal Register** on February 27, 2008, 73 FR 10455-20456. The meeting will be held March 31, 2008 to April 1, 2008. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public. Dated: February 29, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4402 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Collateral Circulation and PAD. *Date:* March 27, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Ai-Ping Zou, PhD, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777, *zouai@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Dermatology/Rheumatology Small Business Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* March 31-April 3, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Chief, MOSS IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1215, *mcdonald@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Opportunistic Infections in AIDS. *Date:* April 1, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Mary Clare Walker, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5208, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1165, *walkermc@csr.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: February 29, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4405 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 19, 2008, 3 p.m. to March 19, 2008, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2008, 73 FR 7312-7314. The meeting will be held March 24, 2008, from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public. Dated: February 29, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4409 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel Scholarly Works (G13). *Date:* May 9, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, MSC 7968, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968,

(301)594-4937, *huangz@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* May 15, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, MSC 7968, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-594-4937, *huangz@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: February 29, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4404 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Public Meeting: Seeking Comments on Implementation of the NIH Public Access Policy AGENCY: The National Institutes of Health

(NIH)of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: With this notice, the National Institutes of Health

(NIH)of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)announces the following public meeting and seeks public comment regarding implementation of the NIH Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting From NIH-Funded Research. The policy and supporting materials can be found at *http://publicaccess.nih.gov* . Comments may be submitted in advance of the meeting to NIH Public Access staff at *http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments/comments.htm* . All comments for consideration at the meeting must be received on or before March 17, 2008. In addition, NIH advises that it will publish in the **Federal Register** in March 2008 a notice of availability of a Request for Information

(RFI)asking for comments about its Public Access Policy (Policy) and the effectiveness of the Policy's implementation. *Public Meeting Time and Date:* 10 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Thursday, March 20, 2008. *Location:* Main Auditorium, NIH Natcher Conference Center, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 45, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. *Background:* The National Institutes of Health (NIH)—The Nation's Medical Research Agency—is comprised of 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit *http://www.nih.gov* . The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of Public Law 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) which states: SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. As described in NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (NOT-OD-08-033 available at *http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html* ), as of April 7, 2008, applicable articles arising from NIH funds must be submitted to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication. As of May 25, 2008, NIH applications, proposals, and progress reports must include the PMC reference number when citing an article that falls under the policy. This policy includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 due date and subsequent due dates. *Request for Comments:* The purpose of the Thursday, March 20, 2008 meeting is to seek comment from the public on implementation of the NIH Public Access Policy. The meeting is open to everyone, including NIH-funded researchers, representatives of universities and other NIH grantee organizations, publishers (including commercial organizations, professional societies and journal editors), patients and public health advocates, and members of the public. • NIH desires broad participation and comment. NIH is particularly interested in obtaining information on its Public Access Policy and the effectiveness of the Policy's implementation. This meeting is open to the public. For space planning purposes, all participants are requested to register for the meeting at *http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments/registration.htm* . The public may also view the meeting via live videocast. Videocast details will be posted to *http://publicaccess.nih.gov* by March 17, 2008. Individuals, groups, and organizations interested in submitting written comments on the NIH policy for consideration at the meeting should direct their comments to the following NIH Web site: *http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments/comments.htm* . Such written comments should be submitted prior to March 17, 2008. All submitted comments are considered public and will be made available through the NIH Public Access site. In addition, as set forth below, NIH will provide another opportunity for submission of comments, by issuing a Request for Information on the Public Access Policy. *Agenda and selection of speakers:* An agenda for the meeting will be posted to *http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm* by March 17, 2008. Individuals wishing to present comments at the meeting can sign up to do so during the registration period at the start of the meeting. An estimated total of 30-40 comments will be presented. *Report and Subsequent Request for Information and Public Comment:* In addition to this March 20th stakeholders meeting, in March 2008 NIH will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of availability of a Request for Information

(RFI)asking for comments about its Public Access Policy (Policy) and the effectiveness of the Policy's implementation. The RFI will solicit public comments for 60 days. The NIH plans to respond to the comments and announce any amendments to its Policy within 120 days of the end of the comment period. *Contact Person for Information:* Questions concerning the meeting may be addressed to: Neil M. Thakur, PhD, Special Assistant to the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Building 1, Room 134, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone 301-496-1096, Fax 301-402-3469, *PublicAccessComments@NIH.gov* . Dated: March 5, 2008. Norka Ruiz Bravo, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-4676 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection; Submission for Review Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Private Sector Clearance Program (CIKR PSCP) 1670-NEW AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Partnership and Outreach Division, Partnership Programs and Information Sharing Office. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on new information collection request 1670-NEW, Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Private Sector Clearance Program (CIKR PSCP) Clearance Request. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), DHS is soliciting comments for this collection. DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 9, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1. ADDRESS: Comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Partnership and Outreach Division, Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Clearance Program (CIKR PSCP), Attn: Michael Schooler, Ballston 1, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA 22201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Partnership and Outreach Division, Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Private Sector Clearance Program (CIKR PSCP), Attn: Michael Schooler, *michael.schooler@dhs.gov* or 703-235-3660. This is not a toll free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. Analysis *Agency:* Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Partnership and Outreach Division. *Title:* CIKR PSCP Clearance Request Form. *OMB Number:* 1670-NEW. *Frequency:* Once. *Affected Public:* Private Sector. *Number of Respondents:* 250 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Total Burden Hours:* 42 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* None. *Description:* The Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Private Sector Clearance Program (CIKR PSCP) is designed to provide private sector individuals clearances so that they can be partners with DHS. These partners are subject matter experts within specific industries and sectors. DHS has created this program to facilitate granting clearances to appropriate individuals. The CIKR PSCP requires individuals to complete a clearance request form that initiates the clearance process. Individuals are selected and then invited to become partners with DHS for a specific project or task. DHS Sector Specialists or Protective Security Advisors email the form to the individual who emails back the completed form. The data from these forms make up the Master Roster. The Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth and Place of Birth are entered into e-QIP—Office of Personnel Management's secure portal for investigation processing. Once the data is entered in e-QIP by the DHS Office of Security, Personnel Security Division then the applicant can complete the rest of the e-QIP security questionnaire. The CIKR PSCP Master Roster contains all the information found on the clearance request form in addition to their clearance info (date granted, level, date non-disclosure agreements signed.) The Administrator of the Master Roster maintains the information so as to track clearance processing and investigation information (date of investigation) and to have the most current contact information for the participants from each sector. Dated: February 29, 2008. Charlie Church, Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-4605 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2008-0029] The National Infrastructure Advisory Council AGENCY: Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Council Meeting SUMMARY: The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet on April 8, 2008 in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet Tuesday, April 8, 2008 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. For additional information, please consult the NIAC Web site, *http://www.dhs.gov/niac,* or contact Tim McCabe by phone at 703-235-2888 or by e-mail at *timothy.mccabe@associates.dhs.gov.* *Location:* The meeting will be held in Washington, DC. The specific location has not yet been determined. The meeting location will be published in the **Federal Register** and posted on the NIAC Web site no later than one week prior to the meeting. ADDRESSES: While we will be unable to accommodate oral comments from the public, written comments may be sent to Nancy Wong, Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Washington, DC 20528. Written comments should reach the contact person listed below by March 25, 2008. Comments must be identified by DHS-2008-0029 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: timothy.mccabe@associates.dhs.gov* Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 703-235-3055. • *Mail:* Nancy Wong, Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Washington, DC 20528. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; telephone 703-235-2888. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The National Infrastructure Advisory Council shall provide the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security with advice on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet to address issues relevant to the protection of critical infrastructure as directed by the President. The April 8, 2008 meeting will also include final deliberations from one Working Group:

(1)The Insider Threat to Critical Infrastructures. The Council will also hear status reports from its two new Working Groups:

(1)The Combined Topic Working Group; and

(2)The Critical Partnership Strategic Assessment Working Group. Procedural While this meeting is open to the public, participation in The National Infrastructure Advisory Council deliberations is limited to committee members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the NIAC Secretariat at 703-235-2888 as soon as possible. Dated: March 4, 2008. Nancy Wong. Designated Federal Officer for the NIAC. [FR Doc. E8-4713 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2007-0003] Permanent Relocation of the Coast Guard National Maritime Center

(NMC)AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard National Maritime Center (NMC), which was previously located in Arlington, VA, and more in Kearneysville, WV, has moved into its new permanent location in Martinsburg, WV, as part of a planned effort to restructure and centralize the Mariner Licensing and Documentation

(MLD)Program. This notice provides information regarding both the MLD Program restructuring and how to address correspondence to the appropriate staff of the reorganized and relocated NMC. DATES: The permanent office in Martinsburg, WV, became operational on January 7, 2008. No further NMC operations will be carried out in Arlington, VA, or Kearneysville, WV. ADDRESSES: The National Maritime Center's new facility is located at 100 Forbes Drive in Martinsburg, WV. Correspondence should be addressed as follows in order to facilitate the most efficient mail processing and timely responses to the public's requests: Commanding Officer * (For correspondence to other than the Commanding Officer, insert the appropriate division title and designation as provided below.) Coast Guard National Maritime Center 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404. ** Operations and Oversight (NMC-1)* for issues related to Regional Examination Center

(REC)operations and quality assurance; ** Mariner Training, Assessment, and Exams (NMC-2)* for issues related to Exams, Course Approvals, Instructors, Designated Examiners, and Oversight & Audits; ** Program Support (NMC-3)* for issues related to finance, general administration, and information technology; ** Mariner Information (NMC-4)* for issues related to credential application quality assurance, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), WWII veterans, DD-214's, certificates of discharge, log books, shipping articles, and credential production; ** Mariner Evaluation (NMC-5)* for issues related to professional, medical, and security evaluations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call Mr. Jeffrey Brandt, National Maritime Center, telephone 304-433-3667. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MLD Program restructuring and centralization plan, approved in 2005, will centralize many of the functions currently performed by 17 RECs at one Merchant Mariner Credential

(MMC)processing center in Martinsburg, WV, over the next 12-18 months. Having one MMC processing center will allow for more consistent procedures, cost reduction, and improved oversight and customer service to mariners. The NMC has been reorganized into five divisions consisting of the Operations and Oversight Division (NMC-1), Mariner Training and Assessment Division (NMC-2), Program Support Division (NMC-3), Mariner Information Division (NMC-4), and Mariner Evaluation Division (NMC-5). Dated: March 4, 2008. Jeffrey G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States Coast Guard. [FR Doc. E8-4679 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2007-0077] Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; Accounting of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: For eight fiscal years starting in 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century has made $5 million available to the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Homeland Security for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In 2005, the law was amended and the amount was increased to $5.5 million. This notice satisfies a requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the **Federal Register** . In this notice we have specified the amount of monies the Coast Guard has committed, obligated or expended during fiscal year 2007, as of September 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone 202-372-1062, fax 202-372-1932. *Background and Purpose:* The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code—Recreational Vessels. On September 29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005 was enacted (Pub. L. 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act increased the funds available to the national recreational boating safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated that “not less than” $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code—Recreational Vessels. The responsibility to administer these funds was delegated to the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. Subsection

(c)of section 7405 of the Act directs that no funds available to the Secretary under this subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available each fiscal year from 1999 through 2007 shall remain available until expended. Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during fiscal year 2007 for each activity is shown below. *Factory Visit Program:* Funding was provided to continue the national recreational boat factory visit program, initiated in January 2001. The factory visit program currently allows contractor personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, to visit 2,000 recreational boat manufacturers each year to inspect for compliance with federal regulations, communicate with the manufacturers as to why they need to comply with federal regulations, and educate them, as necessary, on how to comply with federal regulations. ($2,156,810) *Boat Compliance Testing:* Funding was provided to continue expanded Boat Testing program which includes inboard/sterndrive boats and used boats. ($100,000) *Associated Equipment Compliance Testing:* Funding was provided to continue to buy recreational boat “associated equipment” (e.g., starters, alternators, fuel pumps, and bilge pumps) and test this equipment for compliance with federal safety regulations. This new initiative complements the boat compliance testing program. ($150,000) *New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel:* Travel by employees of the Office of Boating Safety was performed to carry out additional recreational boating safety actions and to gather background and planning information for new recreational boating safety initiatives. ($13,489) *Boating Accident News Clipping Service:* Funding was provided to continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents nationally for more real time accident information and to identify accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety defects. ($54,900) *Accident Investigation Tiger Team:* Funding was provided to continue to provide on-call expert accident investigative services for any boating accident that appeared to involve a regulatory non-compliance or safety defect. ($59,278) *Web-based Document Management System:* Funding was provided to continue to provide a web-based document management to better enable the handling of thousands of recreational boating recall case and campaign reports. ($49,630) *Recreational Boating Safety

(RBS)Outreach Program:* Funding was provided for this program which provides full marketing, media, public information, and program strategy support to the nation-wide RBS effort. The goal is to coordinate the RBS outreach initiatives and campaigns some of which include: National Boating Under the Influence Campaign (BUI), “You're in Command. Boat Responsibly!”, PFD Wear, Vessel Safety Check Program (VSC), Boating Safety Education Courses, Propeller Strike Avoidance, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, and other recreational boating safety issues on an as needed basis. The USCG purchased and will distribute 10,000 inflatable lifejackets to volunteer groups to be worn while conducting vessel safety checks and during public recreational boating events such as exhibits, boat shows, public education courses, etc. to promote the “Wear it” campaign and to make boaters aware of the modern advances in lifejackets. ($1,696,725) *Boating Accident Report Database

(BARD)Web System:* BARD Web System funding enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia to manage their accident reports electronically over a secure Internet environment. The system also enables the user community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency, nature, and severity of boating accidents. FY 06 funds supported system maintenance, technical (hotline) support and formal classroom instruction for the entire user community. ($310,608) *Personnel Support:* Funding was provided for personnel to support the development of new regulations, to support new contracting activities associated with the additional funding, and to monitor and manage the contracts awarded. ($854,706) *National Recreational Boating Survey:* A national recreational boating survey was conducted to obtain up-to-date statistical estimates on recreational boating. Over 25,000 surveys were completed with individuals who boated between September 2001 and September 2002. Survey findings were extrapolated to produce national, regional and State estimates of boat use as well as the characteristics of boat operators, passengers, boats, safety equipment, and the boating environment. ($2,126) *Risk Management for Recreational Boaters:* Funding was provided for risk-based decision training focusing on three boating groups—families, friends and solo boaters. The course provides attendees with an in-depth look at proper risk management and discusses techniques for better decision-making processes in boating. The end result is to provide a potential national model to recreational boaters with decision-making skills that will result in safer boaters. The benefit will be a better understanding as to how to deal effectively with risk and lower mishap rates. ($25,000) *Propeller Guard Test Protocol:* Funding was provided to complete the recreational boat handling/performance phase of a three-phase effort to develop a protocol for the testing of propeller guards. The test protocol will be made available to propeller guard manufacturers to determine the feasibility of their product for use on recreational boats. ($230,000) *Recreational Boat Rental Education Package:* Funding was provided to develop a standardized educational package for recreational boat rental agencies to use to provide the necessary safety information to renters prior to renting a boat. ($73,783) *Articulated Mannequins/Computer Simulation Model:* Funding was provided to continue the development of flotation mannequins and a water forces computer simulation program to promote the rapid, objective evaluation of different PFD designs on various body types that are representative of the recreational boating population. The computer simulation program will be validated through the use of a family of anthropomorphic, articulated mannequins. The development of the computer simulation program will facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of new and unique PFD designs. ($83,109) Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2007, $3,844,545 has been committed, obligated or expended and an additional $2,015,619 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed, obligated or expended, as of September 30, 2007. Approximately $7.8 million has not been committed, obligated or expended from previous years, and is being reserved for a multi-year national boating survey. Dated: December 3, 2007. James A. Watson, Rear Admiral (Lower Half), U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 6, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-4755 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Compendium of Flood Map Changes AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)announces the availability of the Compendium of Flood Map Changes which provides a listing of changes made to the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP)maps that went into effect between July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. Future notices of NFIP map changes will be made available approximately every 6 months. DATES: The listings include changes to NFIP maps that went into effect between July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: The Compendium of Flood Map Changes is available on the Internet at: *http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dl_comp.shtm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 1360(i) of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4101(i), this notice is provided to inform interested parties of the availability of changes made by FEMA to NFIP maps. In the Compendium of Flood Map Changes, the two listings show communities affected by map changes made by letter and communities affected by physical map changes. For each Letter of Map Change, the first listing provides the map panel(s) affected, effective (determination) date of the change, case number, and determination type. For each physical map change, the Map Revision listing provides the map panel(s) affected and the effective date of the change. The listing also identifies:

(1)Those panels on which the Special Flood Hazard Areas have not been changed or have been changed only to incorporate the Letters of Map Change issued before the effective date; and

(2)those panels for which a Flood Insurance Rate Map is produced for the first time, resulting only in changes to flood insurance and floodplain management requirements in the affected community. Future notices of changes to NFIP maps will be made available approximately every 6 months. The Compendium of Flood Map Changes is available on the Internet at *http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dl_comp.shtm* . The compendia shall be available, free of charge, to Federal entities for lending regulation, Federal agency lenders, and States and communities participating in the national flood insurance program and at a cost to all other parties. For more information contact the FEMA Map Service Center at

(800)358-9616 or go to *http://www.msc.fema.gov.* Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4101(i). Dated: February 28, 2008. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-4631 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant (Pursuant to 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act); OMB Control No. 1615-0017. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 9, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to

(202)272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control No.1615-0017 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview Of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant (Pursuant to 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-192. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or households. The information furnished on Form I-192 will be used to determine if the applicant is eligible to enter the U.S. temporarily under the provisions of section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 4,420 responses at 30 minutes (0.50) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 2,210 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, Telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: March 3, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-4694 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5194-07] Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment; Admission to, and Occupancy of Public Housing: Admission and Tenant Selection Policies, Verification, Notification, Preference, Waiting List, Exemption of Police Officers AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD. ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* May 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Lillian L. Deitzer, Department Reports Management Officer, ODAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone: 202-708-2374, (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Deitzer at *Lillian_L._Deitzer@hud.gov* for a copy of the proposed form and other available information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Schulhof, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone: 202-708-0713 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is submitting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

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

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

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

(4)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Admission to, and Occupancy of Public Housing: Admission and Tenant Selection Policies, Verification, Notification, Preference, Waiting List, and Exemption of Police Officers. *OMB Control Number:* 2577-0220. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* The Statute requires HUD to ensure the low-income character of public housing projects and to assure that sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the project. Public Housing Agencies

(PHAs)enter into an Annual Contribution Contract

(ACC)with HUD to assist low-income tenants. HUD regulations, Part 960, provide policies and procedures for PHAs to administer the low-income housing program for admission and occupancy. PHAs must develop and keep on file the admission and occupancy policies and the PHA must include in the annual plan or supporting documents the number and location of the units to be occupied by police officers, and the terms and conditions of their tenancies; and a statement that such occupancy is needed to increase security for public housing residents. PHA compliance will support the statute; and, HUD can ensure that the low-income character of the project and sound management practices will be followed. *Agency form number, if applicable:* Not applicable. *Members of affected public:* Individual or households, State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including respondents:* Number of respondents × Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours 3278 3278 60 196,680 *Status of the proposed information collection:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Authority:* Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: March 4, 2008. Bessy Kong, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives. [FR Doc. E8-4727 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5207-N-01] Notice of Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 Opportunity To Register Early and Other Important Information for Electronic Application Submission Via Grants.gov AGENCY: Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice provides instructions to potential applicants applying for funding under HUD's grant programs available through Grants.gov. This notice does not pertain to applicants who will be applying in Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 for Continuum of Care funds. HUD will publish a separate notice to address the receipt of Continuum of Care applications in FY2008. This notice provides information to help applicants better understand the registration and electronic submission process for HUD applications made available through Grants.gov. Grants.gov is the federal portal for applicants to electronically find and apply for over 1,000 funding opportunities made available by 26 Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov offers the applicant community a common Web site where applicants can apply for a variety of federal assistance programs. To date, all 26 Federal grant-making agencies have posted their funding opportunities and electronic application packages to Grants.gov. HUD believes that by facilitating a better understanding of the electronic submission process, applicants will be able to more easily make the transition to electronic application submission. HUD advises potential applicants to carefully read this notice and immediately begin the registration process or renew their registration from prior years. To apply on-line electronically, Grants.gov requires an electronically authorized signature, known as e-Authentication. This requirement for an authenticated electronic signature serves to protect the applicant and the applicant's information, and to assure federal agencies that they are interacting with officials authorized to submit applications on behalf of applicant entities. Through this notice, HUD is encouraging applicants to complete or update their registration, in advance of HUD posting its FY2008 grant opportunities. HUD found that issuing an Early Registration Notice eliminates many last minute registration issues, and allows applicants time to ensure that all steps in the registration process have been completed. This Notice also provides time for applicants to have their questions addressed regarding the registration and submission processes. HUD strongly encourages prospective applicants for FY2008 HUD grants to register or update/renew their registration for application submission via Grants.gov as soon as possible by following the instructions in this notice. HUD anticipates that it will post its funding opportunities in the Spring of 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, Office of Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone number

(202)708-0667. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. Full Text of Announcement This notice is divided into two sections. Section I describes the registration process including steps to renew/update an existing registration. Section II provides guidance to applicants trying to submit an application and that are experiencing upload or transmission issues. HUD continues to require applicants submit their applications electronically via Grants.gov. In FY 2007, over 99.5 percent of applicants successfully submitted applications electronically for HUD's grant programs via grants.gov. Less than one-half of one percent of applicants experienced registration or submission issues. While these numbers are relatively small, HUD strives to assist all applicants gain a better understanding of the electronic submission process. This notice serves to strongly encourage applicants to submit their applications in advance of the deadline date and when the Grants.gov help desk is open so if any issue arises, there is sufficient time to provide timely assistance. In FY 2008 HUD will be using Adobe forms in the application packages. The Adobe forms are compatible with the Vista operating system, Microsoft Office 2007 and Apple Macintosh computers. To use the Adobe forms, applicants must download the free Adobe Reader 8.1.2 or the latest Adobe Reader version available from Grants.gov. For information on compatibility or to download the Adobe Reader, go to the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp* . Section II of this notice provides information regarding how to download the application package and the application instructions package from Grants.gov. Applicants do not need to be registered with Grants.gov to download an application or the instructions, but all the steps in the registration process must be complete to successfully submit an application for funding consideration via Grants.gov. Applicants should carefully read the instructions before completing the application. The instructions download will contain the General Section and the Program Section. Together, these documents provide details of what will be required in your application submission as well at what rules and requirements you will be expected to comply with if you get awarded funds. The General Section explains the switch to Adobe forms and changes that were made to the 2008 General Section and Program Sections. The instructions download also contain any additional forms that are not part of the application package but are required to have a complete application. I. Completing the Registration Process for New Applicants or Updating a Registration for Applicants That Are Currently Registered A. The Need To Register With Grants.gov. HUD provides funding only to organizations. This information, therefore, is directed to HUD applicants that are organizational entities. Before an applicant can apply for a grant opportunity, the applicant must first register with Grants.gov to provide and obtain certain identifying information. Please note that registration is a multi-step process. The registration process also requires the applicant to provide information at Web sites other than Grants.gov. Registration protects both HUD and the applicant. Specifically, registration confirms that the applicant has designated a certain individual or entity to submit an application on its behalf and assures the HUD that it is interacting with a designated representative of the applicant who has been authorized to submit the application. B. Steps To Register HUD's NOFA process requires applicants to submit applications electronically through Grants.gov. Before being able to do so, applicants must complete several important steps to register or update/renew their registration as submitters. The registration process can take approximately 2 to 4 weeks to complete. 1. *Step One:* Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Step One of the registration process requires an applicant to obtain a DUNS number for the organizational entity for which it will be submitting the application. All organizations seeking funding directly from HUD must have a DUNS number and include the number on the form SF-424, Application for Federal Financial Assistance, which is part of the application package. The DUNS number is also a required as part of the registration process. If your organizational entity already has a DUNS number, it may use that number provided it is registered with Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) as required by this notice. Failure to provide a DUNS number will prevent you from obtaining an award, regardless of whether it is a new award or renewal of an existing one. This policy is pursuant to OMB policy issued in the **Federal Register** on June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38402). HUD codified the DUNS number requirement on November 9, 2004 (69 FR 65024). A copy of the OMB **Federal Register** notice and HUD's regulation codifying the DUNS number requirement can be found at *www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/duns.cfm* . Applicants cannot submit an application without a DUNS number. Applicants must note that applicant information entered and used to obtain the DUNS number will be used to pre-populate the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), which is Step Two of the registration process. Applicants should, therefore, carefully review information entered when obtaining a DUNS number. When registering with D&B, please be sure to use the organizational entity's legal name used when filing a return or making a payment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Organizations should also provide the zip code using the zip code plus four code (Zip+4). Applicants can obtain a DUNS number by calling

(866)705-5711 (this is a toll-free number). The approximate time to get a DUNS number is 10 to 15 minutes, and there is no charge. After obtaining your DUNS number, applicants should wait 24 to 48 hours to register with the CCR so that its DUNS number has time to become activated in the D&B records database. 2. *Step Two:* Register with the CCR. The second step of the registration process is registering with the CCR. The CCR is the primary vendor database for the Federal Government. An organization planning to submit a grant application must register or annually update or renew its registration with CCR to establish roles and IDs for representatives that will use Grants.gov to submit electronic grant applications. If you need assistance with the CCR registration process, you can contact the CCR Assistance Center, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at

(888)277-2423 or

(269)961-5757. Applicants can also obtain assistance online at *www.ccr.gov.* A CCR Handbook that guides applicants through the registration process is available on the CCR Web site by clicking on “Help.” If you fail to update/renew your CCR registration, your Grants.gov registration will lapse and you will not be able to submit an application for funding. Registration, including update/renewal can take several weeks as CCR compares its records to those maintained by D&B and IRS. If discrepancies arise, Step Two cannot be completed until the discrepancies are resolved. For this reason, HUD urges applicants to complete the CCR registration, or update/renew its existing registration, immediately. Otherwise, the CCR check with D&B and IRS records may delay your completing the registration process and adversely affect your ability to submit your grant application. The CCR registration process consists of completing a Trading Partner Profile (TTP), which contains general, corporate, and financial information about your organization. When completing the TTP, you will be required to identify an eBusiness Point of Contact (eBusiness POC), responsible for maintaining the information in the TTP and granting authorization to individuals to serve as Authorized Organization Representatives (AORs). An AOR is the individual who will submit the application through Grants.gov for the applicant organization. Applicants can check the CCR registration and eBusiness POC by going to *http://www.ccr.gov* and searching by clicking on “Search CCR.” a. CCR Use of D&B Information. In July 2006, CCR implemented a policy change. Under this policy change, instead of obtaining name and address information directly from the registrant, CCR obtains the following data fields from D&B: Legal Business Name; Doing Business as Name (DBA); Physical Address; and Postal Code (Zip+4). Registrants will not be able to enter or modify these fields in CCR as they will be pre-populated using previously registered Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)records data. During a new registration, or when updating a record, the registrant has a choice to accept or reject the information provided from the D&B records. If the registrant agrees with the D&B supplied information, the D&B data will be accepted into the CCR registrant record. If the registrant disagrees with the D&B supplied data, the registrant must go to the D&B Web site at *http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform* to modify the information contained in D&B's records before proceeding with its CCR registration. Once D&B confirms the updated information, the registrant must revisit the CCR Web site and “accept” D&B's changes. Only at this point will the D&B data be accepted into the CCR record. This process can take up to 2 business days for D&B to send modified data to CCR, and that time frame may be longer if data is sent from abroad. b. CCR EIN/TIN Validation. To complete your CCR registration and qualify as a vendor eligible to bid for federal government contracts or apply for federal grants, the EIN/TIN and Employer/Taxpayer Name combination you provide in the IRS Consent Form must match exactly to the EIN/TIN and Employer/Taxpayer Name used in federal tax matters. It will take one to two business days to validate new and updated records prior to becoming active in CCR. Please be sure that the data items provided to D&B match information provided to the IRS. If the registration in D&B and the CCR does not match the IRS information, an error message will result. Until the discrepancies have been resolved, your registration will not be completed. HUD recommends that applicants carefully review their D&B and CCR registration information for accuracy immediately upon publication of this notice. If you have questions about your EIN/TIN, call

(800)829-4933. c. Detailed Steps to Register with CCR. The following is a step-by-step guide to help you register with CCR. As noted, additional assistance is available online at *http://www.ccr.gov.*

(1)Go to *http://ccr.gov/.* Once on the site, on the left side of the screen, click “Start New Registration.” At the “Start a New Registration” screen, of the three choices, please select “I am not a U.S. Federal Government entity.” Click “Continue.” Note: CCR registration is NOT required for individuals. Applicants should be aware that HUD does not directly fund individuals through its NOFA process.

(2)The next screen provides review items that must be completed before continuing in CCR. After you review the information and all items have been completed, click “Continue with Registration.”

(3)To begin your registration with CCR, enter your DUNS number and click “Next.”

(4)At the next screen, “New Registration,” you will be prompted to enter your DUNS number. Then click “Next.” The next “New Registration” screen displays your DUNS number. You will be prompted to enter your organization information, e.g., name, address, etc. If the information you inputted does not match that contained in the D&B record for the DUNS number provided, the system will state: “Try again by correcting your input below” OR “Contact D&B to make a change to your D&B DUNS record.”

(5)The next page of “New Registration” is “Verify Your Results with D&B”. Here you will be asked, “Is this information correct?” After ensuring the accuracy of the information, click on “Accept/Continue” or “Cancel.”

(6)If you “Accept/Continue,” your confirmation number will be displayed. This is a temporary number that allows you to save your registration as a work in progress. Print this page. Your temporary number along with your DUNS number will let you access CCR to complete your registration at a later date.

(7)Continuing your registration from the Confirmation page, click “Continue.”

(8)“How to Complete your Registration” is the next page. Once you have reviewed the information and it is correct, click “continue.”

(9)The “General Information” page is the next screen. On this page you will need to complete all the required information.

(10)Creating a Marketing Partner ID Number (MPIN). The final step in creating your Trading Partner Profile

(TTP)requires that you create a Marketing Partner ID Number (MPIN). The MPIN is a self-defined nine character password that the eBusiness POC will need to access Grants.gov to authorize an AOR to be able to submit a grant application.

(11)Registration Notification. If your registration was submitted successfully, you will receive two letters via the U.S. Mail or e-mail. The first welcomes you to CCR and includes a copy of your registration. The second contains your confidential Trading Partner Identification Number (TPIN). Receipt of your TPIN confirms that you are successfully registered in CCR and serves as your confidential password to change CCR information. d. Current Registrants without an MPIN. If you currently have an active registration in CCR and you do not have an MPIN, you will need to do the following:

(1)Access the CCR Web site at *http://www.ccr.gov.* At the left margin, click on “Update or Renew Registration.”

(2)Select “I am not a U.S. Federal Government entity. Click “Continue.”

(3)Enter you DUNS number and TPIN.

(4)On the next page click on the link “Points of Contact.” Complete all fields for the eBusiness POC and the alternate eBusiness POC. Scroll down to the bottom of the Points of Contact page, and create your own MPIN. Once completed, click on the “Validate/Save” button. 3. *Step Three: Register with the Credential Provider.* To safeguard the security of your electronic information, Grants.gov utilizes a Credential Provider to determine with a degree of assurance that someone is really who he or she claims to be. An assigned AOR must register with the Credential Provider to create his/her user name and password, which are needed to submit an application with an electronic signature via Grants.gov. To register with a credential provider, the AOR must have the applicant organization's DUNS number. Your organization will need to have your organization's DUNS number available and be registered with the CCR to complete this process. Since August 30, 2007, organizations have three federally approved credential providers available from which to choose their authentication services—the Agriculture Department; the Office of Personnel Management's Employee Express; and Operational Research Consultants (ORC), Inc., which also provided authentication services prior to August 30, 2007. Users who already hold a Grants.gov user name and password through ORC will not experience much change. New Users will be able to choose from any of the three credential providers available. • To register with a credential Provider go to *http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/ORCRegister.* Once you have accessed the site, scroll down the page and enter the DUNS number, and click on “Register”. • At the next screen scroll down and select “Get Your Credentials”. • On the “eAuthentication User Information” screen, complete and submit all information. • On the next screen you need to confirm your information and create your own USER ID and PASSWORD. Then click “Submit.” If all the information has been entered correctly, you will receive a notice of Registration Success. Note: Your registration is not complete until Steps Four and Five below are completed. 4. *Step Four: Register with Grants.gov.* After completing Step 3, creating a User Name and Password with the credential provider, the person(s) named by the applicant organization to submit an application for funding on behalf of the organization, must register with Grants.gov. After the AOR registers their User ID and Password with Grants.gov, the organization's eBusiness POC will be sent an e-mail indicating that someone has requested authority to submit an application for the organization and has registered as an AOR. Applicants can register with Grants.gov at *https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/GrantsgovRegister.* 5. *Step Five: Granting Approval of an AOR to Submit an Application on Behalf of the Organization.* The eBusiness POC must log into the Grants.gov Web site and give the registered AOR approval to submit an application to Grants.gov. By authorizing the AOR to submit on behalf of the organization, the organization is stating that the person has the legal authority to submit the electronic application and can make a legally binding commitment for the organization. a. The eBusiness POC must approve the designated AOR(s). If the eBusiness POC does not grant authorization, Grants.gov will not accept the application. The eBusiness POC can designate the AOR to submit applications on behalf of the organization at *https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/AorMgrGetID.* The registration is complete when an AOR has been approved to submit an application on behalf of the applicant organization by the eBusiness POC. HUD urges applicants to check with their eBusiness POC to make sure that they have been authorized to make a legally binding commitment for the applicant organization when submitting the application to Grants.gov. This is particularly important if during the CCR registration renewal process the eBusiness Point of Contact for the applicant organization has been changed. The new eBusiness Point of Contact will have to grant authorization to all AORs. You can search the CCR registration for the eBusiness Point of Contact by going to *https://www.bpn.gov/CCRSearch/Search.aspx.* b. AORs can track their AOR status at any time on Grants.gov by going to the Applicant home page at Grants.gov. In “Quick Links” log in as an applicant and enter your User Name and Password. If you have not been granted AOR status by the eBusiness POC, you should contact the eBusiness POC directly. II. Instructions on How To Download an Application Package and Application Instructions at Grants.gov Applicants should sign up to be notified when HUD places a funding opportunity on Grants.gov or does a technical correction or an amendment to an opportunity on Grants.gov by signing up for the e-mail notification service at *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/e-mail_subscription.jsp* . HUD recommends that all applicants sign up for this notification service. Applicants that have not signed up for the notification service can search for a funding opportunity on Grants.gov by going to *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/find_grant_opportunities.jsp* . On this page you can do a basic search, browse by category, or browse by agency. If you are interested in HUD Grants, click on browse by agency and then scroll down the page until you see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on the right column. When you click on the HUD agency name, you will come to a page with all the funding opportunities that are posted by HUD at that point in time. When you click on an opportunity, you will come to a page that provides a synopsis of the opportunity and which also identifies the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number for the Program, the Funding Opportunity Number and further down the page, a link to the full announcement. To download the application and instructions, follow the directions below, but first you must be sure you have the compatible Adobe Reader installed. HUD's 2008 applications will be using Adobe forms. To open and complete the application package you must have installed Adobe Reader 8.1.2 or higher. Adobe Reader 8.1.2 is available free and can be found on the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp* . You will not be able to complete or submit your application if you fail to download the free Adobe Reader 8.1.2 (or higher version available on Grants.gov). Please make anyone that will be working on the Adobe forms portion of the application aware that they must download the new 8.1.2 Adobe Reader. This does not impact forms that you may save as PDF forms to your application as attachments. Adobe Reader 8.1.2 is compatible with Adobe Professional versions. However, for the newest reader to work, you must be sure that your Adobe default setting for the Reader is set to the Adobe 8.1.2 version. For information on how to set your default settings, go to *https://grants.gov/help/general_faqs.jsp#19* . Follow Option #2, labeled “Set Your Computers Default to Use the Correct Version of Adobe Reader for the opening of all files with a PDF extension”. Applicants are urged to review the Adobe Reader 8.1.2 information and get the new reader installed on their computer when this Notice is published so that they are prepared for the FY 2008 NOFAs when they are published in the Spring of 2008. A. *Application Package and Application Instructions Download.* Once you have installed Adobe Reader 8.1.2 you can download the Application Package and instructions. To download the application and instructions go to *https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms_apps_idx.html* and enter the CFDA Number, Funding Opportunity Number, or Funding Competition ID for the opportunity you are interested in; do not enter more than one criterion. If you enter more than one criterion, you will get a message that states the opportunity cannot be found. Only enter one of the above numbers. On the next page “Selected Grant Applications for Download,” you will find the funding opportunity link to Download Instructions and Application. Additional resource information is also on this page, including a reminder to sign up for e-mail notification for changes to funding opportunity, a download link to the Adobe Reader as well as a Help link. Click on the Download link to get to the Download page. Then proceed to download the instructions and the application. If you get an error message in opening the downloaded application, you have not properly installed the Adobe Reader 8.1.2. Contact your IT help desk or the Grants.gov support desk at *Support@Grants.gov* by e-mail or by calling 800-518-GRANTS. B. *Download Instructions Link.* The instructions download is a compressed file

(ZIP)containing the General Section and Program Sections for the funding opportunity. It also contains forms and copies of the General Section and Program Section of HUD's NOFAs, information that you will need to submit a complete application to Grants.gov for HUD funding consideration. For each program, NOFA provides a checklist which you can use to ensure that you have completed all elements of your application. HUD's General Section provides helpful information and tips to ensure that you complete your application correctly and what to do to ensure that all your information is attached to the application. When attaching files to your application, HUD suggests that you open each attachment file and scroll down to make sure it is the complete file that you want to submit. C. *Compatibility with Apple Macintosh computers, Microsoft Windows Vista operating system, and Microsoft Office 2007.* HUD moved to the Adobe forms application in FY 2008 because the forms are compatible with the broadest array of computer hardware and software technology currently in use by HUD's applicant/grantee community. For information on Adobe compatibility go to *http://www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp* . Applicants can test if they have the software installed properly by going to *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/AdobeVersioningTestOnly.jsp.* Questions regarding the installation of Adobe Reader 8.1.2 should be directed to the Grants.gov help desk during operating hours Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays) from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. at 800-518-GRANTS. Dated: February 28, 2008. Keith A. Nelson, Assistant Secretary for Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4724 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-4679-N-14] Multifamily Mortgage Insurance Premiums; Withdrawal of Proposal To Implement Changes in Mortgage Insurance Premiums for FY2008 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Final notice. SUMMARY: On October 18, 2007, HUD published, for public comment, a notice announcing proposed changes in the mortgage insurance premiums

(MIP)for certain Federal Housing Administration

(FHA)multifamily mortgage insurance programs whose commitments will be issued or reissued in Fiscal Year

(FY)2008. Based on consideration of the concerns raised in the public comments, HUD has decided not to proceed with implementation of the proposed MIP increases for FY2008. The MIPs in effect during FY2006 and FY2007 will be the same rates applied to commitments issued or reissued in FY2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Stevenson, Director, Policy Division, Office of Multifamily Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000, Telephone:

(202)708-1142 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 207.252, 207.252a, and 207.254 provide that instead of setting the MIP at one specific rate for all programs, the Secretary is permitted to change an MIP program by program within the full range of HUD's statutory authority of one fourth of one percent to one percent of the outstanding mortgage principal per annum through a notice, as provided in section 203(c)(1) of the National Housing Act (the Act) (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(1)). The regulation at 24 CFR 207.254 states that HUD will provide a 30-day period for public comment on notices changing MIPs in multifamily insured housing programs. On October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59150), HUD published a notice that proposed changes in MIPs for certain FHA multifamily mortgage insurance programs whose commitments will be issued or reissued in FY2008. HUD provided a 30-day public comment period which closed on November 19, 2007. HUD received approximately 179 comments, which included letters from members of Congress, trade associations and other interested members of the public. All commenters expressed opposition to the proposed changes. Based on consideration of the concerns raised in public comments, HUD has decided not to proceed with implementation of the proposed MIP increases for FY2008. The MIPs originally published on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51538) and in effect during FY2006 and FY2007 will be the same rates applied to commitments issued or reissued in FY2008, and are set out in Section II of this notice. II. FY2008 Mortgage Insurance Premiums The mortgage insurance premiums to be in effect for FHA firm commitments issued or reissued in FY 2008 are shown in the table below. For all projects with low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) the sponsor is required under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235 (approved December 15, 1989)) and HUD's implementing instructions to submit a certification regarding governmental assistance with all multifamily mortgage insurance applications. Fiscal Year 2008 MIP Rates—Multifamily Loan Program Loan program Basis points 207 Multifamily Housing NC/SR without LIHTC 50 207 Multifamily Housing NC/SR with LIHTC 45 207 Manufactured Home Parks without LIHTC 50 207 Manufactured Home Parks with LIHTC 45 221(d)(3) Nonprofit/Cooperative mortgagor without LIHTC 80 221(d)(3) Limited dividend with LIHTC 45 221(d)(4) NC/SR without LIHTC 45 221(d)(4) NC/SR with LIHTC 45 232 NC/SR Health Care Facilities without LIHTC 57 232 NC/SR—Assisted Living Facilities with LIHTC 45 220 Urban Renewal Housing without LIHTC 50 220 Urban Renewal Housing with LIHTC 45 213 Cooperative 50 231 Elderly Housing without LIHTC 50 231 Elderly Housing with LIHTC 45 207/223(f) Refinance or Purchase for Apartments without LIHTC *45 207/223(f) Refinance or Purchase for Apartments with LIHTC *45 232/223(f) Refinance for Health Care Facilities without LIHTC *50 232/223(f) Refinance for Health Care Facilities with LIHTC *45 223(a)(7) Refinance of Apartments without LIHTC 45 223(a)(7) Refinance of Apartments with LIHTC 45 223(a)(7) Refinance of Health Care Facilities without LIHTC 50 223(a)(7) Refinance of Health Care Facilities with LIHTC 45 223d Operating loss loan for Apartments 80 223d Operating loss loan for Health Care Facilities 80 241(a) Improvements/additions for Apartments/coop without LIHTC 80 241(a) Improvements/additions for Apartments/coop with LIHTC 45 241(a) Improvements/additions for Health Care Facilities without LIHTC 57 241(a) Improvements/additions for Health Care Facilities with LIHTC 45 242 Hospitals 50 Title XI—Group Practice 50 * The First Year MIP for the section 207/223(f) loans for apartments is one percent for the first year, as specified in sections 24 CFR 207.232b(a). The first year MIP for 232/223(f) health care facilities is one percent. Credit Subsidy A credit subsidy obligation is required for the three sections of the Act listed below. If the mortgagor's equity is produced from LIHTC for sections 221(d)(3) and 241(a), a credit subsidy obligation will not be required. • Section 221(d)(3) for new construction or substantial rehabilitation (NC/SR). • Section 223(d) for operating loss loans for both apartments and health care facilities. • Section 241(a) for supplemental loans for additions or improvements for apartments only. Dated: February 29, 2008. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E8-4600 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [F-19154-8; AK-964-1410-HY-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. The lands are in the vicinity of Shungnak, Alaska, and are located in: T. 18 N., R. 6 E., Secs. 16, 17, 20, and 21. Containing approximately 160 acres. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Tundra Drums. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until April 9, 2008 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov* . Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Crystal Arroyo, Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I. [FR Doc. E8-4715 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-100-08-1310-NB-016K] Notice of Meetings of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(1976)and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Pinedale Anticline Working Group

(PAWG)will meet in Pinedale, Wyoming, for business meetings. Group meetings are open to the public. DATES: The PAWG will meet on the following dates beginning at 1 p.m.: May 29, 2008; July 24, 2008; September 25, 2008; and October 23, 2008. Further, the Annual Tour will be held on June 20th. The tour will start at the BLM Pinedale Field Office at 8:30 am. ADDRESSES: The meeting of the PAWG will be held at the BLM Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, Pinedale, WY. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caleb Hiner, BLM/PAWG Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, PO Box 768, Pinedale, WY 82941; 307-367-5352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pinedale Anticline Working Group

(PAWG)was authorized and established with release of the Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG advises the BLM on the development and implementation of monitoring plans and adaptive management decisions as development of the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field proceeds for the life of the field. The agendas for these meetings will include discussions concerning any modifications task groups may wish to make to their monitoring recommendations and overall adaptive management implementation as it applies to the PAWG. At a minimum, public comments will be heard prior to adjournment of each meeting. Dated: March 4, 2008. Chuck Otto, Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E8-4717 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NMNM 117830] Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; New Mexico AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)has filed an application requesting the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw 20 acres of public land from the mining laws for a period of 20 years to protect a Border Patrol Forward Operating Base in Luna County, New Mexico, and to convey jurisdiction of the land to the DHS. This notice temporarily segregates the land for up to 2 years from location and entry under the mining laws while the 20-year withdrawal application is being processed. DATES: Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Las Cruces District Manager, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Allen, BLM Las Cruces District Office, 575-525-4454 or at the above address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applicant for the above withdrawal is the DHS. The application asks the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, for a period of 20 years, the following described public land from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights: Deming Forward Operating Base New Mexico Principal Meridian T. 29 S, R. 12 W., Section 3: E 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 . The area described aggregates 20 acres in Luna County. The application is a withdrawal proposal of the Secretary of the DHS (43 CFR 2310.1-2). The purpose of the withdrawal is to provide the agents at the Deming Station facilities that would improve response times, increase shift time, expedite illegal alien processing, and provide increased safety and protection of the agents and detainees. The withdrawal is needed to convey jurisdiction of the land to the DHS and to protect the Federal investment in the facilities. A right-of-way or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain nondiscretionary uses and would not provide sufficient protection of the Federal investment in the improvements. The site proposed for withdrawal is strategically located and provides for the most direct access, via existing ranch roads, to the border in areas of high smuggling and illegal alien activity. The site is adjacent to a major roadway; and electric utilities are nearby. There are no better locations for the forward operating base. Records relating to the proposed withdrawal can be examined by contacting Lori Allen at the above address or phone number. All persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the BLM Las Cruces District Manager at the address listed above by June 9, 2008. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Las Cruces District Office at the address listed during regular business hours, 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware 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 your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the BLM Las Cruces District Manager at the address listed above by June 9, 2008. If the authorized officer determines a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the **Federal Register** and a local newspaper at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, and other discretionary land use authorizations may be allowed during the segregative period, but only with the approval of a BLM official and with the concurrence of an authorized officer of the DHS, Border Patrol. This withdrawal proposal will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300. For a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the land will be segregated as specified above unless the application is denied or cancelled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3-1) Bill Childress, District Manager, Las Cruces. [FR Doc. E8-4602 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-05-1220-EB-CO-] Notice To Establish Special Recreation Permit Application, Renewal and Transfer Fees for Commercial, Competitive, or Organized Group Activities and Events; Colorado AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)plans to implement Special Recreation Permit

(SRP)fees. The fees will establish standard statewide application, transfer, and renewal fees for SRPs. The fees apply to commercial, competitive, or organized group activities and events on BLM lands, and revenues will be used to help offset the cost of processing SRPs. Field offices will also be allowed to keep more revenues that would benefit on-the-ground work, including an increased law enforcement presence, hiring seasonal employees, and site improvements. Currently, there is no statewide SRP fee. This new fee will not affect cost recovery charges when the 50-hour cost recovery threshold is anticipated to be exceeded. The fees are: • New SRP—$100 • SRP Renewal (re-issuance of expired permits)—$50 • SRP Transfer from one person to another person—$100 These fees do not apply to individual SRPs authorizing use of designated Special Use Areas. Also, no fees are charged for annual operating authorizations. Future adjustments in the fee amount will be made based on inflation and local market trends. Consultation will be made with Colorado's three Resource Advisory Committees and appropriate public notices will be posted prior to a fee increase. DATES: The SRP Application Fee Proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on September 11, 2007, as a proposed supplementary rule. The comment period was open through November 13, 2007. The new fees will go into effect on March 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Placchi, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215,

(303)239-3832. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background All commercial, competitive or organized group activities, special events, and special area use on BLM public lands require a Special Recreation Permit (SRP). The BLM Colorado manages over 800 commercial, competitive, and organized group activity and event SRPs annually. BLM Colorado is implementing a new SRP application fee for the issuance of new permits, and for the transfer and renewal of existing permits. The new administrative fees are $100 for a new permit, $50 for a permit renewal, and $100 for a permit transfer. The average cost to existing permit holders will be $10 per year, as most permits are renewed every 5 years. This fee does not apply to individual SRPs issued for special area use. A statewide application fee will make the cost of applying for and receiving a commercial, competitive, or organized group activity and event SRP consistent at all the BLM Colorado field offices.. The fees collected under statewide application will be kept at the site to augment recreation opportunities for the public. Both public and private outfitters will benefit from the fee through the BLM's increased law enforcement capabilities, additional funds for signing and interpretive education, and a greater BLM field presence to control illegal operations on BLM-managed public lands. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2932.31(d)(1)-(4), and BLM Manual, H-2930-1 Recreation Permit Administration Page 27 paragraph f. (1), the State Director has the authority to set and adjust fees for SRPs. Direction from the BLM's “Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services (Purple Book), Goal 3: Provide for and Receive Fair Value in Recreation” also encourages the implementation of such fees. Comments Received on Proposed Supplementary Rule Only one comment was received regarding the proposed fee. The commenter had two concerns: 1. That the fee should be $250.00 To determine an appropriate fee structure, the BLM interviewed BLM SRP managers across Colorado. Those interviewed included recreation permit and license managers of local and regional recreational programs including Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area, Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs, and Colorado State Parks River Outfitter Licensing Program. The BLM also interviewed the Executive Director of the Colorado Outfitters Association. As a result of these consultations, we believe the proposed fee structure is appropriate. 2. That the BLM not sanction any animal abuse in permitted events The BLM does not sanction the abuse of animals and complies with all state and Federal laws regarding livestock and other animals. There is no need to change the fee structure based on this comment. Sally Wisely, Colorado State Director. [FR Doc. E8-4604 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Headquarters, Cape Wind Energy Project 2008 AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period. DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 21, 2008. SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service hereby gives notice that it is extending the public comment period for the Cape Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 18, 2008, (Volume 73, No. 13) for an additional 30 days. Please see the Notice of Availability of the DEIS (73 FR 3482) for more detailed information related to the Cape Wind Energy Project. In response to requests for additional time, the MMS will extend the comment period from March 20, 2008, to April 21, 2008. Federal, State, tribal, and local governments and other interested parties are requested to comment on the DEIS. Comments will be accepted through the MMS Web site, by mail or in person at the public hearings as stated below. 1. Electronically using MMS's on-line commenting system at: *http://ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/.* This is the preferred method for commenting. 2. In written form, mailed or delivered to MMS Cape Wind Energy Project, TRC Environmental Corporation, Wannalancit Mills, 650 Suffolk Street, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854. 3. In person at the public hearings. *Public Hearings:* The MMS will hold public hearings to receive comments on the DEIS. The public hearings are scheduled as follows: • Monday, March 10, 2008 at Mattacheese Middle School Auditorium, 400 Higgins-Crowell Road, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, 6 p.m. • Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at Nantucket High School Auditorium, 10 Surfside Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 5 p.m. • Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at Martha's Vineyard Regional High School Auditorium, 100 Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, 5 p.m. • Thursday, March 13, 2008 at Campus Center Ballroom, University of Massachusetts, Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, South Boston, Massachusetts, 6 p.m. *Correction:* The January 18, 2008, **Federal Register** Notice indicated that pre-registration would be available prior to the public hearings. There is no pre-registration for the public hearings. Registration for the public hearings will begin one hour before each hearing starts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Rodney E. Cluck, Minerals Management Service, Alternative Energy Program, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop 4080, Herndon, Virginia 20170, or by phone at

(703)787-1300. Dated: March 4, 2008. Chris C. Oynes, Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-4700 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Meeting for the Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council Within the Alaska Region AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of meeting for the Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council within the Alaska Region. SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS)announces a meeting of the Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss mitigation of impacts from aircraft overflights at Denali National Park and Preserve. This meeting is open to the public and will have time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcomed to present written or oral comments. The meeting will be recorded and a summary will be available upon request from the Superintendent for public inspection approximately six weeks after each meeting. The Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council is authorized to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. DATES: The Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council meeting will be held on Thursday, April 10, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Alaska Standard Time. The meeting may end early if all business is completed. *Location:* Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge, Mile 12.5 Talkeetna Spur Road, Talkeetna, Alaska 99676. Telephone:

(907)733-9500. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miriam Valentine, Denali Planning. E-mail: *Miriam_Valentine@nps.gov* . Telephone:

(907)733-9102 at Denali National Park, Talkeetna Ranger Station, P.O. Box 588, Talkeetna, AK 99676. For accessibility requirements please call Miriam Valentine

(907)733-9102. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting location and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances. If the meeting dates and location are changed, notice of the new meeting will be announced on local radio stations and published in local newspapers. The agenda for the meeting will include the following, subject to minor adjustments: 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorum. 3. Chair's Welcome and Introductions. 4. Review and Approve Agenda. 5. NPS report on FACA parameters. 6. Member Reports. 7. Agency and Public Comments. 8. Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports. 9. Agency and Public Comments. 10. Updating Priorities for Advisory Council Work. 12. Agency and Public Comments. 13. Other New Business. 14. Agency and Public Comments. 16. Set time and place of next Advisory Council meeting. 17. Adjournment. Dated: February 14, 2008. Marcia Blaszak, Regional Director, Alaska Region, National Park Service. [FR Doc. E8-4710 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-PF-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Schedule of Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee Meetings

(2008)AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of upcoming scheduled meetings. SUMMARY: This notice announces a schedule of upcoming meetings for the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee. DATES: The meetings are scheduled for: April 8, 2008, June 4, 2008, August 5, 2008, October 1, 2008 and December 2, 2008. *Time:* All scheduled meetings will begin at 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: All scheduled meetings will be held at Sylvan Lake Park, 845 Lake Markham Rd., Sanford, FL 32771. Sylvan Lake Park is located off Interstate 4 at Exit 51 (SR 46). Take SR 46 West to Lake Markham Rd. Turn left on Lake Markham Rd and continue one mile to Sylvan Lake Park on the left. Call

(407)322-6567 or visit *http://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/leisure/parks/index.asp* for additional information on this facility. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Doubek-Racine, DFO, Wekiva Wild and Scenic River, RTCA Program, Florida Field Office, Southeast Region, 665 South Orange Avenue, Suite 8, Sarasota, Florida 34236, tel.

(941)330-8047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The scheduled meetings will be open to the public. Each scheduled meeting will result in decisions and steps that advance the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee towards its objective of developing a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River. Any member of the public may file with the Committee a written statement concerning any issues relating to the development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River. The statement should be addressed to the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee, National Park Service, 665 South Orange Avenue, Suite 8, Sarasota, Florida 34236. The Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee was established by Public Law 106-299 to assist in the development of the comprehensive management plan for the Wekiva River System and provide advice to the Secretary in carrying out management responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274). Efforts have been made locally to ensure that the interested public is aware of the meeting dates. Dated: January 14, 2008. Deirdre Hewitt, Program Manager, Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program, Southeast Region. [FR Doc. E8-4675 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-53-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before February 23, 2008. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by March 25, 2008. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. IDAHO Bannock County Old Town Residential Historic District, Roughly bounded by W. Benton, S. Garfield & W. Lewis Sts., & Portnuef R. Pocatello, 08000249 Latah County Deesten Farmstead, (Agricultural Properties of Latah County, Idaho) 3611 U.S. 95 S, Moscow, 08000250 Soncarty, Edward and Ida, Barn, (Agricultural Properties of Latah County, Idaho) 1671 Deep Creek Rd., Potlatch, 08000251 Power County Davie, William, House, (American Falls, Idaho, Relocated Townsite MPS) 703 Hutchinson Ave., American Falls, 08000252 MISSOURI Cole County Wallendorf, Joseph and Elizabeth, House, 701 S. Country Club Dr., Jefferson City, 08000253 OREGON Benton County Children's Farm Home School, 4455 U.S. 20 NE., Corvallis, 08000254 RHODE ISLAND Newport County Stone House Inn, 122 Sakonnet Rd., Little Compton, 08000255 VIRGINIA James City County Norge Train Depot, 7770 Croaker Rd., Williamsburg, 08000256 WISCONSIN Dodge County Kliese Housebarn, N336 Co. Rd. EM, Emmet, 08000257 Jefferson County Brandt House, 410 S. 4th St., Watertown, 08000258 [FR Doc. E8-4609 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-017] Dominion Virginia Power; Notice of Hearing and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene on a Combined License for North Anna Unit 3 Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” and 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” notice is hereby given that a hearing will be held, at a time and place to be set in the future by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) or designated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The hearing will consider the application dated November 26, 2007, filed by Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion), pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52, for a combined license (COL). The application, which was supplemented by letters dated January 17 and 28, 2008, requests approval of a COL for North Anna Unit 3 located at the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Virginia. The application was accepted for docketing on January 28, 2008. The docket number established for this application is 52-017. The hearing will be conducted by a Board that will be designated by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or by the Commission. Notice as to the membership of the Board will be published in the **Federal Register** at a later date. The NRC staff will complete a detailed technical review of the application and will document its findings in a safety evaluation report. The Commission will refer a copy of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS)in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, “Referral to the ACRS,” and the ACRS will report on those portions of the application that concern safety. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and desires to participate as a party to this proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. A petition for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or presiding officer designated to rule on the petition, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. A petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which was promulgated by the NRC on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at: *HearingDocket@nrc.gov,* or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding even in instances in which the petitioner (or its counsel or representative) already holds a NRC-issued digital ID certificate. Each petitioner will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or locally

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petitions and/or requests should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at: *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in the filing. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filing and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Any person who files a motion pursuant to 10 CFR 2.323 must consult with counsel for the applicant and counsel for the NRC staff who are listed below. Counsel for the applicant are Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Telephone:

(804)819-2684, E-mail: *Lillian_Cuoco@dom.com* , and David R. Lewis, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Telephone:

(202)663-8474, E-mail: *david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com.* Counsel for the NRC staff in this proceeding are Robert M. Weisman, Esq., Telephone:

(301)415-1696, E-mail: *Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov,* and Renee V. Holmes, Esq., Telephone:

(301)415-3319, E-Mail: *Renee.Holmes@nrc.gov.* A person who is not a party may be permitted to make a limited appearance by making an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues at any session of the hearing or any pre-hearing conference within the limits and conditions fixed by the presiding officer, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* The ADAMS accession number for the application is ML073320913. The application is also available at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-4706 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on February 20, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree (“Consent Decree”) in the matter of *United States* v. *Bridgeport United Recycling, Inc. and United Oil Recovery, Inc.,* Civil Action No. 3:08CV247 (JBA), was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In the complaint in this matter, the United States sought injunctive relief and penalties against Bridgeport United Recycling, Inc. (“BUR”) and United Oil Recovery, Inc. (“UOR”) for claims arising under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6901 *et seq.* , in connection with the operation of BUR's hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility located in Bridgeport, Connecticut and UOR's hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility located in Meriden, Connecticut. Under the Consent Decree, BUR will automate and upgrade the air emission control system used at the Bridgeport facility and pay a civil penalty of $205,798.00. Under the Consent Decree, UOR will pay a civil penalty of $119,392.00. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* v. *Bridgeport United Recycling, Inc. and United Oil Recovery, Inc.,* D.J. Ref. No. 90-7-1-08350. Commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d). The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Connecticut Financial Center, 157 Church Street, Floor 23, New Haven, CT 06510, and at U.S. EPA Region I, Robert F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.* A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax number

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $8.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury, or, if by email or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-4608 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—High Definition Metrology and Process-2 Micron Manufacturing Under ATP Award No. 70NANB7H7041 Notice is hereby given that, on December 13, 2007, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), High Definition Metrology and Process-2 Micron Manufacturing under ATP Award No.70NANB7H7041 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing

(1)the identities of the parties and

(2)the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Engineering and Manufacturing Alliance, Ann Arbor, MI; Coherix Inc., Ann Arbor, MI; Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI; and Superior Controls, Plymouth, MI. The general area of planned activity is to develop High Definition Metrology and related manufacturing technologies to realize a significant enhancement in both accuracy and precision in manufacturing, aiming for 2 micron variation in precision manufacturing. The activities of this venture project will be partially funded by an award from the advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-4394 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in *United States* v. *UnitedHealth Group Incorporated* , Civil Case No. 08-0322. On February 25, 2008, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“United”) of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (“Sierra”) would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint alleges that the acquisition would substantially reduce competition between the two largest health insurers selling Medicare Advantage health insurance plans to senior citizens in the Las Vegas, Nevada area, resulting in higher prices, less choice, and a reduction in the quality of Medicare Advantage plans sold to the Medicare-eligible population. The proposed Final Judgment filed with the Complaint requires the parties to divest United's individual Medicare Advantage business in the Las Vegas area to a purchaser that will remain a viable competitor in the market. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 325 7th Street, NW., Room 215, Washington, DC 20530 (202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr* , and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the **Federal Register** and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed to Joshua H. Soven, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530 (202-307-0001). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States of America, 1401 H Street, NW. - Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, MN 55343, and Sierra Health Services, Inc., 2724 North Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, NV 89128, Defendants. Civil No. 1:08-cv-00322 Judge: Ellen S. Huvelle Filed: 2/25/2008 Complaint The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to enjoin UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“United”) from acquiring Sierra Health Services, Inc. (“Sierra”), and alleges as follows: 1. Unless enjoined, United's proposed acquisition of Sierra will substantially increase concentration in an already highly concentrated market that is no broader than Medicare Advantage health insurance plans sold to senior citizens (“seniors”) and other Medicare-eligible individuals in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, (“the Las Vegas area”). As defined by Federal law, Medicare Advantage plans consist of Medicare Advantage health maintenance organization plans (“MA-HMO”), Medicare Advantage preferred provider organization plans (“MA-PPO”), and Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans (“MA-PFFS”). See 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2). United and Sierra together account for approximately 94 percent of the total enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area, which total accounts for approximately $840 million in annual commerce. 2. Congress created the Medicare Advantage program as a private market alternative to government-provided traditional Medicare. In establishing the Medicare Advantage program, Congress intended that vigorous competition among private Medicare Advantage insurers would lead insurers to offer seniors richer and more affordable benefits than traditional Medicare, provide a wider array of health insurance choices, and be more responsive to the demands of seniors. 3. The acquisition will decrease competition substantially among Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area and eliminate substantial head-to-head competition between United (through the PacifiCare health insurance business that United acquired in 2005) and Sierra in the provision of such plans. The competition between United and Sierra has, for years, benefited thousands of seniors. Through competition, United's and Sierra's plans provide seniors with substantially greater benefits than those available under traditional Medicare alternatives, saving seniors thousands of dollars in yearly health care costs. The proposed acquisition will end that competition, eliminating the pressure that these close competitors place on each other to maintain attractive benefits, lower prices, and high-quality health care. 4. United's acquisition of Sierra is likely to reduce competition substantially in the sale of Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. Accordingly, the United States seeks an order permanently enjoining the transaction. I. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. The United States files this Complaint pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25 and 26, to prevent and restrain the defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. 6. United and Sierra are engaged in interstate commerce and in activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337. 7. United and Sierra transact business and are found in the District of Columbia. Venue is proper under 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c). II. The Defendants and the Proposed Transaction 8. United is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota and has its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota. United is the largest health insurer in the United States, providing health insurance and other services to more than 70 million people nationwide. In 2007, United reported revenues of approximately $75 billion. 9. United's Medicare Advantage products are sold under the Secure Horizons and AARP brands. United provides health insurance to approximately 27,800 Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. Approximately 26,000 of these enrollees are individual enrollees whose enrollment is not affiliated with an employer or other group. The remainder are group retirees who enrolled in a United Medicare Advantage plan through an employer or other group. 10. In the Las Vegas area, United has a well-established managed-care network that United uses to provide services to enrollees in its MA-HMO plans. Health care services provided by HealthCare Partners, LLC, The Physicians IPA, Inc., and Summit Medical Group are an integral part of United's managed-care network in the Las Vegas area. 11. Sierra is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Nevada and has its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Sierra is the largest health insurer in Nevada, providing health insurance and other services to more than 655,000 people. In 2007, Sierra reported revenues of $1.9 billion. 12. Sierra sells Medicare Advantage plans under the Senior Dimensions, Sierra Spectrum, Sierra Nevada Spectrum, and Sierra Optima Select brands. Sierra provides health insurance to approximately 49,500 Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. 13. Sierra owns Las Vegas's largest medical group, Southwest Medical Associates, Inc. (“SMA”), which employs approximately 250 physicians and other health care professionals. SMA provides care almost exclusively to Sierra members and provides a substantial portion of the care delivered to Sierra's Medicare Advantage members. 14. On March 11, 2007, United and Sierra entered into a merger agreement, whereby United agreed to acquire all outstanding shares of Sierra. The transaction is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. III. The Medicare Advantage Insurance Market 15. The federal government provides and facilitates the provision of health insurance to millions of Medicare-eligible citizens through two types of programs: traditional Medicare (also known as Original Medicare) and Medicare Advantage. Under traditional Medicare, a beneficiary receives hospital coverage under Medicare Part A and can elect to receive coverage for physician and out-patient services under Part B. For Part A, the government charges no monthly premium if the beneficiary was in the workforce and paid Medicare taxes, but for Part B, the government deducts a monthly premium (currently $96.40 for most beneficiaries) from beneficiaries' Social Security checks. In addition, beneficiaries must pay deductibles and/or co-insurance for doctor visits and hospital stays. If beneficiaries want to limit potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket costs, they need to purchase a separate Medicare Supplement plan. For prescription drug coverage, seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare must purchase Medicare Part D drug coverage for an additional premium. 16. In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private insurance companies. These companies compete to offer the most attractive Medicare Advantage benefits to enrollees in a region. Most successful Medicare Advantage plans, including those in the Las Vegas area, offer substantially richer benefits at lower costs to enrollees than traditional Medicare, including lower co-payments, lower co-insurance, caps on total yearly out-of-pocket costs, prescription drug coverage, vision coverage, health club memberships, and other benefits that traditional Medicare does not cover. 17. An insurance company that seeks to offer a Medicare Advantage plan in a region must submit a bid to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for each Medicare Advantage plan that it intends to offer. The bid must provide the insurer's anticipated costs per member to cover the basic Medicare Part A and Part B benefits. Those costs, including an anticipated profit margin, are compared to a Medicare benchmark that reflects, in part, the government's likely cost of covering the beneficiaries. If the insurer's bid for Medicare benefits is lower than the benchmark, the Medicare program retains 25 percent of the savings and the insurer must use the other 75 percent to provide supplemental benefits or lower premiums to enrollees. Accordingly, the lower the insurer's projected costs, the more benefits seniors enrolled in the insurer's plan will have available to them. 18. A sufficient number of seniors in the Las Vegas area would not switch away from Medicare Advantage plans to traditional Medicare in the event of a small but significant reduction in benefits under the plans, or a small but significant increase in price, to render the benefit decrease or price increase unprofitable. Accordingly, in the Las Vegas area, the sale of Medicare Advantage plans is a relevant product market and a line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. IV. Relevant Geographic Market 19. Residents in the Las Vegas area (Clark and Nye Counties) may only enroll in Medicare Advantage plans that CMS approves for the county in which they live. Consequently, they could not turn to Medicare Advantage plans elsewhere in the state or in other regions in response to a reduction in competition between Sierra and United in the Las Vegas area. Accordingly, the Las Vegas area is a relevant geographic market or section of the country within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. V. Market Concentration 20. The market for Medicare Advantage plans is highly concentrated and would become significantly more concentrated as a result of the proposed acquisition. Sierra accounts for approximately 60 percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. United accounts for approximately 34 percent. If consummated, the merger would give United a 94 percent market share. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”) (a standard measure of market concentration defined and explained in Appendix A) for the Las Vegas area Medicare Advantage market indicates that the market is highly concentrated. The proposed merger would increase concentration by 4,080 points, from 4,756 to 8,836. 21. Sierra and United (through PacifiCare) have accounted for well over 90 percent of Medicare Advantage enrollment in the Las Vegas area for each of the past seven years. VI. Anticompetitive Effects 22. Under the Medicare Advantage program, private competition for Medicare-eligible individuals has produced substantial benefits for consumers throughout the country, including in the Las Vegas area. 23. Sierra and United have competed vigorously with each other to improve their Medicare Advantage plans and attract members. They monitor each other's benefits to stay competitive and consider each other to be very important competitors. 24. United and Sierra compete against each other for newly Medicare-eligible individuals, try to attract members from each other, and seek to avoid losing members to each other, by offering plans with zero premiums, reducing co-payments, eliminating deductibles, improving drug coverage, offering desirable fitness benefits, and attempting to make their provider networks more attractive to potential members. Such competition will be lost in the Las Vegas area if the proposed acquisition is completed, to the substantial detriment of tens of thousands of seniors. After the acquisition, the combined United/Sierra will not have the same incentive to improve benefits as the two separate companies do today, and likely will raise prices or reduce benefits and services. 25. Competition from existing providers of Medicare Advantage plans and new entrants is unlikely to prevent anticompetitive effects. Such firms face substantial cost, reputation, and distribution disadvantages that will likely make them unable to prevent United from raising prices or reducing benefits and services. 26. Accordingly, the proposed transaction likely will substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. VII. Violations Alleged 27. United's acquisition of Sierra would likely substantially lessen competition in the sale of Medicare Advantage health insurance in the Las Vegas area, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. 28. The proposed transaction would likely have the following effects, among others:

(a)Lessening substantially actual and potential competition in the sale of Medicare Advantage insurance;

(b)eliminating actual and potential competition between United and Sierra in the sale of Medicare Advantage insurance;

(c)increasing prices for Medicare Advantage insurance above those that would prevail absent the acquisition; and

(d)decreasing the level of benefits and service associated with Medicare Advantage insurance to levels below those that would prevail absent the acquisition. VIII. Prayer for Relief The United States requests that this Court: 1. Adjudge the proposed acquisition to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18; 2. Permanently enjoin and restrain the defendants from carrying out the Agreement and Plan of Merger between United and Sierra dated March 11, 2007, or from entering into or carrying out any agreement, understanding, or plan by which United would merge with or acquire Sierra, its capital stock, or any of its assets; 3. Award the United States the costs of this action; and 4. Award the United States such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Thomas O. Barnett (DC Bar # 426840) Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division Deborah A. Garza (DC Bar # 395259) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division Patricia A. Brink Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division Joshua H. Soven (DC Bar # 436633) Chief, Litigation I Section Antitrust Division Joseph Miller (DC Bar # 439965) Assistant Chief, Litigation I Section Antitrust Division Peter J. Mucchetti (DC Bar # 463202) Mitchell H. Glende N. Christopher Hardee (DC Bar # 458168) Tiffany C. Joseph-Daniels Barry J. Joyce Ryan M. Kantor John P. Lohrer (DC Bar # 438939) Richard S. Martin Natalie A. Rosenfelt Michelle Seltzer (DC Bar # 475482) Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Litigation I Section, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530,

(202)353-4211,

(202)307-5802 (fax). Dated: February 25, 2008. APPENDIX A Herfindahl-Hirschman Index “HHI” means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. It is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms with shares of 30%, 30%, 20%, and 20%, the HHI is 2600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2600). The HHI takes into account the relative size distribution of the firms in a market and approaches zero when a market consists of a large number of small firms. The HHI increases both as the number of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity in size between those firms increases. Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 and 1800 points are considered to be moderately concentrated, and those in which the HHI is in excess of 1800 points are considered to be highly concentrated. See Horizontal Merger Guidelines 1.51 (revised Apr. 8, 1997). Transactions that increase the HHI by more than 100 points in concentrated markets presumptively raise antitrust concerns under the guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. See id. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Competitive Impact Statement, Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order, and Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures via e-mail and first class, United States mail on February 25, 2008. *For Defendant Unitedhealth Group, Inc.:* Robert E. Bloch, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP, 1909 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-1101. Steven L. Holley, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004. *For Defendant Sierra Health Services, Inc.:* Arthur N. Lerner, Esq., Crowell & Moring, LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Peter J. Mucchetti, Attorney, Litigation I Section, U.S. Department of Justice—Antitrust Division. Final Judgment Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on February 25, 2008, and the United States and Defendant UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Defendant Sierra Health Services, Inc., by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; And whereas, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court; *and whereas* , the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights and assets by Defendants to ensure that competition is not substantially lessened in the sale of Medicare Advantage Plans to senior citizens and others in the Las Vegas, Nevada area; And whereas, the United States requires Defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint; And whereas, Defendants have represented to the United States that the divestiture required by this Final Judgment can and will be made, and that Defendants will not later raise any claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions of this Final Judgment; Now Therefore, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, *it is ordered* , Adjudged, and decreed: I. Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and each of the parties to, this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. II. Definitions As used in this Final Judgment: A. “Acquirer” means the entity to whom the Divestiture Assets are divested. B. “Clark County” means Clark County, Nevada. C. “Clark County CMS Plans” means the individual Medicare Advantage plans offered under CMS Plan Nos. H2949-002, H2949-009, and H2949-012, but does not include any Series 800 Medicare Advantage plans offered to retirees through commercial customers or contracts. D. “Clark and Nye County CMS Plans” means the Clark County CMS Plans and the Nye County CMS Plans. E. “CMS” means the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. F. “Divestiture Assets” means all tangible and intangible assets dedicated to the administration, operation, selling, and marketing of the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans, including

(1)all of United's rights and obligations under United's Medicare Contract No. H2949 with CMS relating to the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans, including the right to offer the Medicare Advantage plan to individual enrollees pursuant to the bids and Evidence of Coverage filed with CMS in 2007 for the 2008 contract year, and the right to receive from CMS a per member per month capitation payment in exchange for providing or arranging for the benefits enumerated in the bids and Evidence of Coverage, and

(2)copies of all business, financial and operational books, records, and data, both current and historical, that relate to the Clark County CMS Plans or the Nye County CMS Plans. Where books, records, or data relate to the Clark County CMS Plans or the Nye County CMS Plans, but not solely to these Plans, United shall provide excerpts relating to these Plans. Nothing herein requires United to take any action prohibited by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). G. “Evidence of Coverage” means the document that outlines an enrollee's benefits and exclusions under a Medicare Advantage Plan. H. “HealthCare Partners” means JSA Healthcare Nevada, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and its affiliated entities, including HealthCare Partners, LLC and Summit Medical Group. I. “Humana” means Humana Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. J. “Las Vegas Area” means Clark County and Nye County. K. “Medicare Advantage Line of Business” means the operations of United that implement and administer the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans. L. “Medicare Advantage Plan” means Medicare Advantage health maintenance organization plans, Medicare Advantage preferred provider organization plans, and Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2). M. “Nye County” means Nye County, Nevada. N. “Nye County CMS Plans” means the individual Medicare Advantage plans offered under CMS Plan Nos. H2949-007 and H2949-011, but does not include any Series 800 Medicare Advantage plans offered to retirees through commercial customers or contracts. O. “PIPA” means The Physicians IPA, Inc., a Nevada non-profit corporation based in Las Vegas, Nevada. P. “Provider Network” means all health care providers, including physicians, hospitals, ancillary service providers, and other health care providers with which United contracts for the provision of covered medical services for United's Medicare Advantage Plans in the Las Vegas area. Q. “Sierra” means Defendant Sierra Health Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees. R. “Transaction” means the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of March 11, 2007, by and among United, Sapphire Acquisition, Inc. and Sierra. S. “United” means Defendant UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation with its headquarters in Minnetonka, Minnesota, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees. III. Applicability A. This Final Judgment applies to United and Sierra, and to all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise. B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and VI of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment. IV. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets A. Defendants are ordered, within forty-five

(45)calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion and on terms acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, including any agreement for transitional support services entered into pursuant to Section IV(J) of this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may grant one or more extensions of this time period, not to exceed sixty

(60)calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in each such circumstance. Defendants shall accomplish the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible and in such a manner as will allow the Acquirer to be a viable, ongoing business engaged in the sale of Medicare Advantage Plans in the Las Vegas Area. B. If applications for approval have been filed with CMS and the appropriate other governmental units within twenty

(20)calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, but these required approvals have not been issued before the end of the period permitted for Divestiture in Section IV(A), the United States may extend the period for Divestiture until five

(5)business days after all necessary government approvals have been received. C. The Divestiture shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing business engaged in the sale of Medicare Advantage Plans in the Las Vegas Area. Defendants must demonstrate to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Divestiture will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The Divestiture shall be:

(1)Made to an Acquirer that, in the United States's sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) to compete effectively in the sale of Medicare Advantage Plans in the Las Vegas Area; and

(2)Accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between Defendants and the Acquirer gives Defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere with the Acquirer's ability to compete effectively. D. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. E. Defendants shall provide to the Acquirer, the United States, and any Monitoring Trustee, information relating to the personnel primarily involved in the operation of the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment to those persons. Defendants shall not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any of those persons. For a period of two

(2)years from the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendants shall not hire or solicit to hire any such person who was hired by the Acquirer, unless the Acquirer has notified such person that the Acquirer does not intend to continue to employ the person. F. Defendants shall assist the negotiation of and entry into agreement(s) between the Acquirer and HealthCare Partners that will allow members of the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans to have continued access to substantially all of United's Provider Network as of January 2008 on terms no less favorable than United's agreements as of January 2008. G. Upon completing the Divestiture and through March 31, 2010, Defendants shall have no agreements with HealthCare Partners or PIPA that provide for access by United to HealthCare Partners or PIPA in connection with enrollees in any type of individual Medicare Advantage plan of Defendants in the Las Vegas Area. H. Upon completing the Divestiture and through March 31, 2009, Defendants shall not use the AARP brand, or any other substantially similar brand, name, or logo, for any type of individual Medicare Advantage plan of Defendants in the Las Vegas Area. Upon completing the Divestiture and through March 31, 2010, Defendants shall not use the SecureHorizons brand, or any other substantially similar brand, name, or logo, for any type of individual Medicare Advantage plan of Defendants in the Las Vegas Area. I. At the Acquirer's option, and subject to approval by the United States, Defendants will allow the Acquirer to license and use the SecureHorizons brand, and any other substantially similar brand, name, or logo, with the Divestiture Assets for twelve months upon completing the Divestiture. J. At the Acquirer's option, and subject to approval by the United States, Defendants will provide transitional support services for medical claims processing, appeals and grievances, call-center support, enrollment and eligibility services, access to form templates, pharmacy services, disease management, Medicare risk-adjustment services, quality-assurance services, and such other transition services that are reasonably necessary for the Acquirer to operate the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall not provide such transitional support services for more than twelve months from the date of the completion of the Divestiture unless the United States shall otherwise approve. K. To ensure an effective transition and transfer of enrollees in the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans to the Acquirer, Defendants shall cooperate and work with the Acquirer in transition planning and implementing the transfer of the Divestiture Assets. L. Defendants will communicate and cooperate fully with the Acquirer to promptly identify and obtain all consents of government agencies necessary to divest the Divestiture Assets. M. Defendants will communicate and cooperate fully with the Acquirer to work in good faith with CMS to select a novation process that is efficient and minimizes any potential disruption and confusion to enrollees in the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans. N. United shall warrant to the Acquirer that, since January 1, 2007, United has operated the Divestiture Assets in all material respects in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practices except for the global capitation agreement that United entered into with HealthCare Partners effective January 1, 2008. United shall also warrant that there has not been

(a)any material loss or change with respect to the Divestiture Assets;

(b)any event, circumstance, development, or change that has had a material adverse effect on the Divestiture Assets; or

(c)any change by United of its accounting or actuarial methods, principles, or practices that is relevant to the Divestiture Assets. O. Defendants shall comply with all laws applicable to the Divestiture Assets. P. Defendants shall not take any action having the effect of delaying the authorization or scheduling of health care services provided to enrollees in the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans in a manner inconsistent with Defendants' past practice with respect to the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans. Q. Defendants shall not make any material change to the customary terms and conditions upon which it does business with respect to the Medicare Advantage Line of Business that would be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a materially adverse effect on the Medicare Advantage Line of Business. R. United shall identify its top ten independent insurance agents, general agents, producers, and brokers (collectively, “Brokers”) that have entered into a Broker contract with respect to the Medicare Advantage Line of Business along with the corresponding number of enrollees produced by each such Broker. United will introduce the Acquirer to any such Broker for the purpose of the Acquirer having an opportunity, at the Acquirer's option, to negotiate an agreement with the Broker to market and sell the Clark and Nye County CMS Plans after the completion of the Divestiture. S. Defendants shall first attempt to sell the Divestiture Assets to Humana. T. If Defendants fail to divest the Divestiture Assets by May 15, 2008, at the discretion of the United States, United shall be required to submit all necessary filings to CMS to ensure that the Divestiture Assets remain a viable, ongoing business, offering the same Medicare Advantage Plans that United offered in 2008 with comparable benefits and premiums. V. Appointment of Monitoring Trustee A. Upon the filing of this Final Judgment, the United States may, in its sole discretion, appoint a Monitoring Trustee, subject to approval by the Court. B. The Monitoring Trustee shall have the power and authority to monitor Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Final Judgment and the Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order entered by this Court and shall have such powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the Monitoring Trustee may hire at the cost and expense of United any consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other persons, who shall be solely accountable to the Monitoring Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Monitoring Trustee's judgment. C. Defendants shall not object to actions taken by the Monitoring Trustee in fulfillment of the Monitoring Trustee's responsibilities under any Order of this Court on any ground other than the Monitoring Trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Monitoring Trustee within ten

(10)calendar days after the action taken by the Monitoring Trustee giving rise to the Defendants' objection. D. The Monitoring Trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of United, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves. The compensation of the Monitoring Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the Monitoring Trustee shall be on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individuals' experience and responsibilities. E. The Monitoring Trustee shall have no responsibility or obligation for the operation of Defendants' businesses. F. Defendants shall assist the Monitoring Trustee in monitoring Defendants' compliance with their individual obligations under this Final Judgment and under the Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order. The Monitoring Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the Monitoring Trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities relating to the Divestiture Assets, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the Monitoring Trustee's accomplishment of its responsibilities. G. After its appointment, the Monitoring Trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the Defendants' efforts to comply with their individual obligations under this Final Judgment and under the Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. H. The Monitoring Trustee shall serve until the divestiture of all the Divestiture Assets is finalized pursuant to either Section IV or Section VI of this Final Judgment and any agreement(s) for transitional support services described in Section IV(J) herein have expired. VI. Appointment of Trustee A. If Defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV(A), Defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, VI, and VII of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section VI(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendants any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture. C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten

(10)calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VII. D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Defendants, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to Defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but timeliness is paramount. E. Defendants shall assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities relating to the Divestiture Assets, and Defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture. F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent that such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets. G. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment within six months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth

(1)the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture,

(2)the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished, and

(3)the trustee's recommendations. To the extent that such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States. VII. Notice of Proposed Divestiture A. Within two

(2)business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Defendants or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States and any Monitoring Trustee of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or VI of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same. B. Within fifteen

(15)calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen

(15)calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree. C. Within thirty

(30)calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty

(20)calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to Defendants and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Section VI(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section VI shall not be consummated. Upon objection by Defendants under Section VI(C), a divestiture proposed under Section VI shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court. VIII. Financing Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any Purchase made pursuant to Section IV or VI of this Final Judgment. IX. Hold Separate and Preservation of Assets Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, Defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that will jeopardize any divestiture ordered by this Court. X. Affidavits and Records A. Within twenty

(20)calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty

(30)calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or VI, Defendants shall deliver to the United States and any Monitoring Trustee an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or VI of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty

(30)calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts Defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming that the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by Defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen

(14)calendar days of receipt of such affidavit. B. Within twenty

(20)calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendants shall deliver to the United States and any Monitoring Trustee an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions that Defendants have taken and all steps that Defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section IX of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States and any Monitoring Trustee an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in Defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen

(15)calendar days after the change is implemented. C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed. XI. Compliance Inspection A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to Defendants, be permitted:

(1)To access during Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the United States's option, to require that Defendants provide hard copy and electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and

(2)to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding these matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendants. B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Defendants shall submit written reports, or responses to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment. C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, which includes CMS, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law. D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by Defendants to the United States, Defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give Defendants ten

(10)calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than grand jury proceedings). XII. No Reacquisition Defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment provided, however, that this Final Judgment shall not prohibit Defendants from offering individual Medicare Advantage Plans in the ordinary course of business otherwise in conformity with this Final Judgment. XIII. Retention of Jurisdiction This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions. XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten

(10)years from the date of its entry. XV. Public Interest Determination Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States's responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16. Date United States District Judge U Competitive Impact Statement Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding Defendants entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 11, 2007, whereby UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (“United”) agreed to acquire all outstanding shares of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (“Sierra”). The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on February 25, 2008 seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition likely will substantially lessen competition in the sale of Medicare Advantage plans in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada (“the Las Vegas area”), in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act (“Section 7”), 15 U.S.C. 18. As defined by federal law, Medicare Advantage plans consist of Medicare Advantage health maintenance organization (“MA-HMO”) plans, Medicare Advantage preferred provider organization (“MA-PPO”) plans, and Medicare Advantage Private Fee-for-Service (“MA-PFFS”) plans. See 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2). When the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate Order”) and proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, would permit United to complete its acquisition of Sierra but would require the divestiture of certain assets (the “Divestiture Assets”) relating to United's Medicare Advantage line of business in the Las Vegas area and injunctive relief sufficient to preserve competition in the sale of Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area. Until the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets has been accomplished, the Hold Separate Order requires Defendants to take all steps necessary to preserve the Divestiture Assets and ensure that Sierra operates as an independent, ongoing, economically viable, competitive business held entirely separate, distinct and apart from United's other operations. Further, until the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets, Defendants must take all steps necessary to ensure that United's Medicare Advantage line of business in Las Vegas will be maintained and operated as an ongoing, economically viable and active line of business; that competition between United and Sierra in the sale of Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestitures; and that Defendants preserve and maintain the Divestiture Assets associated with United's Medicare Advantage line of business in the Las Vegas area. The Hold Separate Order thus ensures that competition is protected pending completion of the required divestitures and that the assets are preserved so that relief will be effective. The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof. II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violations A. The Defendants and the Proposed Transaction United is a Minnesota corporation and has its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota. United is the largest health insurer in the United States, providing health insurance and other services to more than 70 million people nationwide. In 2007, United reported revenues of approximately $75 billion. United provides health insurance to approximately 27,800 Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area under the Secure Horizons and AARP brands. United has a well-established managed-care network in the Las Vegas area that it uses to provide services to enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans. Health care services provided by HealthCare Partners, LLC (“HealthCare Partners”), The Physicians IPA, Inc., and Summit Medical Group are an integral part of this network. Sierra is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Sierra is the largest health insurer in Nevada, providing health insurance and other services to more than 655,000 people. In 2007, Sierra reported revenues of $1.9 billion. Sierra provides health insurance to approximately 49,500 Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. It sells Medicare Advantage HMO products under the Senior Dimensions brand. Sierra sells Medicare Advantage preferred provider organization (“PPO”) plans under the Sierra Spectrum and Sierra Nevada Spectrum brands. Sierra also sells MA-PFFS plans under the Sierra Optima Select brand. Sierra owns the largest medical group in Las Vegas, Southwest Medical Associates, Inc. (“SMA”), which employs approximately 250 physicians and other health care professionals. Sierra uses SMA to provide a substantial portion of the care delivered to Sierra's Medicare Advantage members, particularly HMO and PPO members. On March 11, 2007, United and Sierra entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby United agreed to acquire all outstanding shares of Sierra. The transaction is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. The transaction would give United a 94 percent share of Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. B. The Relevant Product Market is No Broader Than the Sale of Medicare Advantage Health Insurance in the Las Vegas Area The Complaint alleges that United's proposed acquisition of Sierra is likely to substantially lessen competition in a market no broader than the sale of Medicare Advantage health insurance plans to senior citizens (“seniors”) and other Medicare-eligible individuals in the Las Vegas area, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Due in large part to the lower out-of-pocket costs and richer benefits that many Medicare Advantage plans offer seniors over traditional Medicare, seniors in the Las Vegas area would not likely switch away from Medicare Advantage plans to traditional Medicare in sufficient numbers to make an anticompetitive price increase or reduction in quality unprofitable. In a product market that consists of all Medicare Advantage plans, the parties have a combined market share of approximately 94 percent. In a product market of Medicare Advantage coordinated-care plans (MA-HMO and MA-PPO plans), the parties have a combined market share of approximately 99 percent. 1 1 There may be a narrower product market that consists of Medicare Advantage coordinated-care plans, but the Division did not need to determine whether such a product market exists to conclude that the merger is likely to substantially lessen competition and to identify an appropriate remedy for the reduction in competition that otherwise would have resulted from the merger. 1. Healthcare Options for Seniors The federal government facilitates the provision of health insurance to millions of Medicare-eligible citizens through two types of programs:

(1)government-provided traditional Medicare (also known as Original Medicare) and

(2)privately-provided Medicare Advantage. Under traditional Medicare, a beneficiary receives hospital coverage under Medicare Part A and can elect to receive coverage for physician and out-patient services under Part B. For Part A, the government charges no monthly premium if the beneficiary was in the workforce and paid Medicare taxes. For Part B, the government deducts a monthly premium (currently $96.40 for most beneficiaries) from beneficiaries' Social Security checks. In addition, beneficiaries must pay deductibles and/or co-insurance for doctor visits and hospital stays. If beneficiaries want to limit potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket costs, they need to purchase a separate Medicare Supplement plan. For prescription drug coverage, seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare must purchase Medicare Part D drug coverage for an additional premium. Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private insurance companies. In establishing the Medicare Advantage program, Congress intended that vigorous competition among private insurers would lead insurers to offer seniors richer and more affordable benefits, provide a wider array of health-insurance choices, and be responsive to the demands of seniors. In fact, most successful Medicare Advantage plans, including those in the Las Vegas area, offer substantially richer benefits at lower costs to enrollees than traditional Medicare. 2. CMS Regulation of Medicare Advantage Plans An insurance company that seeks to offer a Medicare Advantage plan in a region must submit a bid to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for each Medicare Advantage plan that it intends to offer. The bid must provide the insurer's anticipated costs per member to cover the basic Medicare Part A and Part B benefits. Those costs, including an anticipated profit margin, are compared to a Medicare benchmark that reflects, in part, the government's likely cost of covering the beneficiaries. If the insurer's bid for Medicare benefits is lower than the benchmark, the Medicare program retains 25 percent of the savings and the insurer must use the other 75 percent to provide supplemental benefits or lower premiums to enrollees. Accordingly, the lower the insurer's projected costs, the more benefits seniors enrolled in the insurer's plan will have available to them. CMS's role in approving bids for Medicare Advantage plans does not displace or reduce competition among participating health insurance companies. Rather, the structure of the Medicare Advantage program encourages insurers to compete against each other to attract Medicare beneficiaries by providing low prices and more benefits. 3. Medicare Advantage Plans Provide Better Benefits Than Traditional Medicare As stated above, many Medicare Advantage plans, including the United and Sierra plans offered in the Las Vegas area, provide substantially richer benefits at lower costs to enrollees than traditional Medicare. They offer lower co-payments, lower co-insurance, caps on total yearly out-of-pocket costs, prescription drug coverage, vision coverage, health club memberships, and other benefits that traditional Medicare does not cover. A sufficient number of seniors in the Las Vegas area would not switch away from Medicare Advantage plans to traditional Medicare in the event of a small but significant reduction in benefits under the plans, or a small but significant increase in price, to render the benefit decrease or price increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the sale of Medicare Advantage plans is a relevant product market and a line of commerce in the Las Vegas area under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. C. The Las Vegas Area Is a Relevant Geographic Market Medicare-eligible residents in the Las Vegas area (Clark and Nye Counties) may only enroll in Medicare Advantage plans that CMS approves for the county in which they live. Consequently, they could not turn to Medicare Advantage plans elsewhere in the United States. Because Medicare-eligible residents in the Las Vegas area cannot purchase substitute Medicare Advantage plans sold in other geographic areas, the Las Vegas area is a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. D. Anticompetitive Effects of the Proposed Transaction The relevant market is highly concentrated and would become significantly more concentrated as a result of the proposed acquisition. Sierra accounts for approximately 60 percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees in the Las Vegas area. United accounts for approximately 34 percent. If consummated without divestiture relief, the merger would give the merged company a 94 percent market share. The acquisition of Sierra by United would eliminate substantial head-to-head competition between United and Sierra that for years has benefited thousands of seniors. United and Sierra have competed with each other to sell Medicare Advantage plans that provide seniors with substantially greater benefits than those available under traditional Medicare, saving seniors thousands of dollars in yearly health care costs. The proposed acquisition would end that competition, eliminating the pressure that these close competitors place on each other to maintain attractive benefits, lower prices, and high-quality health care. United and Sierra have competed against each other for newly Medicare-eligible individuals, sought to attract members from each other, and worked to avoid losing members to each other, by offering plans with zero premiums, reducing co-payments, eliminating deductibles, improving drug coverage, offering desirable fitness benefits, and attempting to make their provider networks more attractive to potential members. They have monitored each other's benefits to stay competitive and have considered each other important competitors. After the acquisition, the combined United/Sierra would not have the same incentive to improve benefits of Medicare Advantage plans as the two separate companies do today, and likely would raise prices or reduce services. Competition from existing competitors with small market shares that offer Medicare Advantage plans or new entrants would be unlikely to prevent anticompetitive effects. Such firms face substantial cost, reputation, and distribution disadvantages that would likely prevent them from expanding membership sufficiently to prevent United from raising prices or reducing services. III. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment A. The Divestiture Assets The proposed Final Judgment is designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects identified in the Complaint by requiring United to divest its individual Medicare Advantage line of business in the Las Vegas area to an acquirer approved by the United States and on terms acceptable to the United States. This line of business covers approximately 25,800 individual Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. As described in Section IV of the proposed Final Judgment, United is required to divest all tangible and intangible assets dedicated to the administration, operation, selling, and marketing of its Medicare Advantage plans to individuals in the Las Vegas area (“the Divestiture Assets”), including all of United's rights and obligations under the relevant United contracts with CMS. The divestiture, as contemplated in the proposed Final Judgment, is designed to allow the acquirer of the assets to offer uninterrupted care to subscribers of United's divested Medicare Advantage plans, including the ability of subscribers to continue to see the same health care professionals available to them under the United Medicare Advantage plans. The Divestiture Assets do not include assets relating to approximately 1,800 group enrollees who enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan through an employer or other group. The United States concluded that divesting these assets was not necessary to eliminate the transaction's anticompetitive effects and could be disruptive to those beneficiaries. The divestiture eliminates the anticompetitive effects of the merger by requiring United to divest all of its individual Medicare Advantage business in the Las Vegas area to an acquirer that can compete vigorously with the merged United-Sierra. The divestiture must be accomplished by selling or conveying the Divestiture Assets to an acquirer that, in the sole discretion of the United States, will be a viable, ongoing competitor in the Las Vegas area Medicare Advantage market. The divestiture shall be

(i)made to an acquirer that has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) to compete effectively in the sale of Medicare Advantage products, and

(ii)accomplished so as to satisfy the United States that none of the terms of any agreement between United and any acquirer gives United the ability to interfere with the acquirer's ability to compete effectively. B. Selected Provisions of the Proposed Final Judgment In antitrust cases involving mergers in which the United States seeks a divestiture remedy, it requires completion of the divestiture within the shortest time period reasonable under the circumstances. A quick divestiture has the benefits of restoring competition lost in the acquisition and reducing the possibility of dissipation of the value of the assets. Section IV(A) of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants to divest the Divestiture Assets as a viable, ongoing business within 45 days after the filing of the Complaint. 2 2 Section IV(A) of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the United States, in its sole discretion, may grant one or more extensions to the 45-day period, not to exceed sixty calender days in total. The United States will notify the Court if such an extension is granted. United has proposed to sell the Divestiture Assets to Humana Inc., and the United States has tentatively approved of Humana as the acquirer. Consequently, Section IV(S) of the proposed Final Judgment requires United first to attempt to sell the Divestiture Assets to Humana. Other provisions of the proposed Final Judgment require Defendants to take several steps to enable the acquirer to provide prompt and effective competition in the Medicare Advantage market. Section IV(F) requires that Defendants assist the acquirer of the Divestiture Assets to enter into an agreement with HealthCare Partners that will allow members of United's Medicare Advantage plans to have continued access to substantially all of United's provider network of physicians, hospitals, ancillary service providers, and other health care providers on terms no less favorable than United's agreement with HealthCare Partners. Section IV(J) also requires that, at the acquirer's option, and subject to approval by the United States, Defendants provide transitional support services for medical claims processing, appeals and grievances, call-center support, enrollment and eligibility services, access to form templates, pharmacy services, disease management, Medicare risk-adjustment services, quality-assurance services, and such other transition services that are reasonably necessary for the acquirer to operate the Divestiture Assets. Defendants will not provide these transitional support services for more than twelve months without approval from the United States. Likewise, if Defendants fail to divest the Divestiture Assets by May 15, 2008, Section IV(T) requires United, at the discretion of the United States, to submit all necessary filings to CMS to ensure that the acquirer of the Divestiture Assets (or United, prior to sale of the assets) would be able to continue to offer Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area. From the date that United sells the Divestiture Assets until March 31, 2010, Section IV(G) of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits United from entering into agreements with HealthCare Partners, Physicians IPA, Inc., or Summit Medical Group for any type of individual Medicare Advantage plan of Defendants in the Las Vegas area. Currently, these health care providers participate in United's Medicare Advantage network, but do not participate in Sierra's. The purpose of this requirement is to insure that the acquirer of the Divestiture Assets is placed in the same competitive position with respect to the merged company as United has today with respect to Sierra. In addition, Section IV(H) prohibits United from using the AARP brand for any of its individual Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area from the date that United sells the Divestiture Assets until March 31, 2009, and from using the SecureHorizons brands for any individual Medicare Advantage plans in the Las Vegas area from the date that United sells the Divestiture Assets until March 31, 2010. This prohibition will give the acquirer of the Divestiture Assets time to establish its own brand and reduce beneficiary confusion as to which company operates the plan in which the beneficiary is enrolled. Section V of the proposed Final Judgment permits the appointment of a Monitoring Trustee by the United States in its sole discretion, subject to the Court's approval. If appointed, the Monitoring Trustee will have the power and authority to monitor Defendants' compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment and the Hold Separate Order. The Monitoring Trustee will have access to all personnel, books, records, and information necessary to monitor such compliance, and will serve at the cost and expense of United. The Monitoring Trustee will file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth Defendants' efforts to comply with their obligations under the proposed Final Judgment and the Stipulation. Section VI of the proposed Final Judgment provides that in the event the Defendants do not accomplish the divestiture within the period prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestitures. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Defendants will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestitures are accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the Court and the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestitures have not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment. IV. Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages that the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against defendants. V. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgment The United States and defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. The APPA provides a period of at least sixty days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the **Federal Register** or the last date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement; whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the United States Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court and published in the **Federal Register** . Written comments should be submitted to: Joshua H. Soven, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530. The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment. VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against United's acquisition of Sierra. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of the assets and other relief contained in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition in the product and geographic markets identified in the Complaint. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint. VII. Standard of Review Under the APPA for the Proposed Final Judgment The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

(A)the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

(B)the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one, as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.’ ” *United States* v. *Microsoft Corp.* , 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally *United States* v. *SBC Commc'ns, Inc.* , 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing public interest standard under the Tunney Act). 3 3 The 2004 amendments substituted “shall” for “may” in directing relevant factors for court to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also *SBC Commc'ns* , 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. *See Microsoft* , 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.” *United States* v. *BNS, Inc.* , 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing *United States* v. *Bechtel Corp.* , 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62; *United States* v. *Alcoa, Inc.* , 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001). Courts have held that: [t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is “ *within the reaches of the public interest.* ” More elaborate requirements might undermine the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree. *Bechtel* , 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 4 In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, a district court “must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be “deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies”); *United States* v. *Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.* , 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case). 4 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's “ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree”); *United States* v. *Gillette Co.* , 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to “look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's reducing glass”). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether “the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ”). Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’ ’ *United States* v. *Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.* , 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting *United States* v. *Gillette Co.* , 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd sub nom. *Maryland* v. *United States* , 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also *United States* v. *Alcan Aluminum Ltd.,* 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,” it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459-60. As this Court recently confirmed in SBC Communications, courts “cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598

(1973)(statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11. 5 5 See *United States* v. *Enova Corp.,* 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the “Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6

(1973)(“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”); *United States* v. *Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc.,* 1977-1 Trade Cas.

(CCH)61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should * * * carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”). VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: February 25, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, Peter J. Mucchetti (DC Bar # 463202) Mitchell H. Glende N. Christopher Hardee (DC Bar # 458168) Tiffany C. Joseph-Daniels Barry J. Joyce Ryan M. Kantor John P. Lohrer (DC Bar # 438939) Richard S. Martin Natalie A. Rosenfelt Michelle Seltzer (DC Bar # 475482) Attorneys, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530,

(202)307-0001,

(202)307-5802 (facsimile). [FR Doc. E8-4393 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of petitions for modification of existing mandatory safety standards. SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification filed by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards published in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before April 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods: 1. *Electronic mail: Standards-Petitions@dol.gov* . 2. *Facsimile:* 1-202-693-9441. 3. *Regular Mail:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. 4. *Hand-Delivery or Courier:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. We will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the receptionist desk on the 21st floor. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9443 (Voice), *powasnik.jack@dol.gov* (E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax), or contact Barbara Barron at 202-693-9447 (Voice), *barron.barbara@dol.gov* (E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax). [These are not toll-free numbers.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that:

(1)An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

(2)that the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modifications. II. Petitions for Modification *Docket Number:* M-2008-002-C. *Petitioner:* Blue Diamond Coal Company, P.O. Box 47, Slemp, Kentucky 41763. *Mine:* Mine #75, MSHA I.D. No. 15-17478, located in Perry County, Kentucky. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.364(b)(2) (Weekly examination). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit check points (examination points) to be established in twelve locations of the Parallel Owens Branch Return Main due to water accumulations in these areas that prevent foot travel. The petitioner proposes to establish examination points at certain points to evaluate airflow entering the Parallel Owens Branch Return Main and exiting Parallel Owens Branch Return Main. The petitioner also proposes to establish ventilation check points between certain breaks of the Parallel Owens Branch Return Main. The petitioner states that due to poor roof conditions and water accumulations and the distance from active works, it is impractical to expose personnel to traveling the affected area. The petitioner further states that no lesser degree of safety is ensured by traveling to both ends of the mains and verifying adequate air volume and quality at the evaluation points and check points. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-003-C. *Petitioner:* Brooks Run Mining Company, LLC, 208 Business Street, Beckley, West Virginia 25801. *Mine:* Wyoming No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-09213 located in Wyoming County, West Virginia; and War Branch No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-09055 and Cucumber Slope Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-09066 located in McDowell County, West Virginia. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1101-1(b) (Deluge-type water spray systems). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow the deluge-type water spray to function without blow-off dust covers on the system nozzles. The petitioner proposes to conduct weekly inspection and functional testing of its complete deluge-type water spray system and remove blow-off dust cover from the nozzles. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners employed by the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-004-C. *Petitioner:* The American Coal Company, P.O. Box 727, Harrisburg, Illinois 62946. *Mine:* Galatia Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 11-02752, located in Saline County, Illinois. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i),

(ii)(Portable (trailing) cables and cords). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to increase the maximum length of cables supplying power to permissible equipment used in continuous mining sections. The petitioner states that:

(1)This petition will only apply to trailing cables supplying three-phase, 995-volt power to continuous mining machines and trailing cables supplying three-phase, 480-volt power to roof bolters;

(2)the maximum length of the 995-volt continuous mining machine trailing cables will be 950 feet and the maximum length of the 480-volt trailing cables for roof bolters will be 900 feet;

(3)995-volt continuous mining machine trailing cables will not be smaller than 2/0 and the 480-volt trailing cables for roof bolters will not be smaller than #2 American Wire Gauge (AWG);

(4)all circuit breakers used to protect 2/0 trailing cables exceeding 850 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes and the trip setting will be sealed or locked and will have permanent legible permanent labels that will be maintained as legible to identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting 2/0 cables;

(5)replacement instantaneous trip units, used to protect 2/0 trailing cables, will be calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes and the setting will be sealed or locked;

(6)all circuit breakers used to protect #2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 700 amperes, the trip setting will be sealed or locked, and the circuit breakers will have permanent legible labels that will be maintained as legible to identify the circuit breakers as being suitable for protecting #2 AWG cables;

(7)replacement instantaneous trip units used to protect #2 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 700 amperes and the setting will be sealed or locked;

(8)the designated operator will visually examine the trailing cables during each production day to ensure that the cables are operating safely and the instantaneous settings of the calibrated breakers do not have seals or locks removed and do not exceed the stipulated settings; and

(9)any trailing cable that is not in safe operating condition will be removed from service immediately and repaired or replaced;

(10)each splice or repair in the trailing cables will be made in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the splice or repair materials and will comply with 30 CFR 75.603 and 75.604;

(11)permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the cover(s) of the power center identifying the location of each sealed or locked short-circuit protection device to warn the miners not to change or alter the short-circuit settings. Persons may review a complete description of petitioner's alternative method and procedures at the MSHA address listed in the notice. The petitioner states that the alternative method will not be implemented until miners designated to examine the integrity of the seals or locks verify the short-circuit settings, and proper procedures training have been provided for examining trailing cables for defects and damage. The training for the miners will include the following elements:

(1)Training in mining methods and operating procedures for protecting the trailing cables against damage;

(2)training in the proper procedures for examining the trailing cables to ensure safe operating conditions;

(3)training in the hazards of setting the instantaneous circuit breakers too high to adequately protect the trailing cables; and

(4)training on how to verify that interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) are properly set and maintained. The petitioner further state that within 60 days after the petition is granted, revisions to the Part 48 training plan will be submitted to the District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection to the miners as would be provided by the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-005-C. *Petitioner:* Bear Gap Coal Company, 74 Kushwa Road, Spring Glen, Pennsylvania 17978. *Mine:* N & L Slope Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-02203, located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.311(a) (Main mine fan operation). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow the main mine fan to be idle during non-working hours. The petitioner states that historically, the main mine fan operation has been shut down during non-working shifts, because of icing during the winter months. The petitioner proposes to use the following stipulations in the fan stoppage plan:

(1)Shut the main mine fan down during idle periods;

(2)no mechanized equipment will be used underground when the fan is idle;

(3)no electric power circuits will be energized when the fan is idle;

(4)the main mine fan will be operated for a minimum of one-half hour after the pressure recorder indicates that the normal mine ventilating pressure has been reached prior to any one entering the mine;

(5)the slope gunboat may be used to make the required per-shift examination;

(6)the communication circuit 9-volts will be energized prior to the pre-shift being made;

(7)a certified person will conduct an examination of the entire mine according to the requirements in 30 CFR 75.360;

(8)persons will be allowed to enter the mine after it is determined to be safe and the pre-shift examination results have been recorded. The petitioner further states that repeated testing of methane concentrations have shown that concentration levels at no time have risen above 0.0 percent. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will in no way would provide less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard. Dated: March 4, 2008. Jack Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. [FR Doc. E8-4758 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of Meeting In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: *Name:* Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (9487). *Dates:* April 9, 2008, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; April 10, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. *Place:* Stafford I, Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. *Type of Meeting:* Open. *Contact Person:* Alan Tessier, National Science Foundation, Suite 635, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-7198. *Minutes:* May be obtained from the contact person listed above. *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning support for environmental research and education. *Agenda:* April 9 Introduction of New Members. Update on recent NSF environmental activities. Discussion of Sustainability Science. Break Out Groups. April 10 Meeting with the Director (or Representative). Discussion of Future AC/ERE activities. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4618 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: NUREG/BR-0238, Materials Annual Fee Billing Handbook. NRC Form 628, “Financial EDI Authorization.” NUREG/BR-0254, Payment Methods. NRC Form 629, “Authorization for Payment by Credit Card.” 3. The form numbers if applicable: NRC Form 628 and NRC Form 629. 4. How often the collection is required: Annually. 5. Who will be required or asked to report: Anyone conducting business with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission including licensees, applicants and individuals who are required to pay a fee for inspections and licenses. 6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 466 (10 for NRC Form 628 and 456 for NRC Form 629 and NUREG/BR-0254). 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 466 (10 for NRC Form 628 and 456 for NRC Form 629 and NUREG/BR-0254). 8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 38 (.8 hour for NRC Form 628 and 37 hours for NRC Form 629 and NUREG/BR-0254). 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies: N/A. 10. *Abstract:* The U.S. Department of the Treasury encourages the public to pay monies owed the government through use of the Automated Clearinghouse Network and credit cards. These two methods of payment are used by licensees, applicants, and individuals to pay civil penalties, full cost licensing fees, and inspection fees to the NRC. The NRC Form 628, “Financial EDI Authorization,” provides an option to make electronic payment through the Automated Clearinghouse

(ACH)Network and authorizes the licensee's bank to pay invoices to the NRC through the ACH. The NRC Form 628 requests the licensee's name; electronic funds transfer contact, telephone number, address, authorized signature and title. NRC Form 629, “Authorization for Payment by Credit Card,” is another option used to authorize payment. The credit card authorization form is used by licensees to authorize payment by credit card for license fees and for payment of fees for fingerprint cards, and solicits information that identifies the cardholder's name, address, account number, card expiration date, cards accepted, cardholder's signature, invoice number or license number. There are no recordkeeping requirements associated with this collection. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by April 9, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan Frey, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0190), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at

(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney, 301-415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tremaine U. Donnell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-4646 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No.: 030-19882; License No: 52-21175-01; EA-07-132] In the Matter of Baxter Healthcare, Aibonito, Puerto Rico; Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I Baxter Healthcare of Puerto Rico (Baxter) is the holder of NRC Material License No. 52-21175-01 pursuant to 10 CFR part 30 on July 11, 2005, which authorizes the Licensee to operate an irradiator at its facility in Aibonito, Puerto Rico. This Confirmatory Order (Order) is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution

(ADR)mediation session conducted on December 6, 2007. II An investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of Investigations

(OI)on June 1, 2006, at the Baxter facility in Aibonito, Puerto Rico. This investigation was initiated, in part, to determine if Baxter employees willfully violated NRC requirements related to inspection and maintenance activities for the licensed irradiator at the site, as well as personnel training and qualifications for two irradiator operators. As noted in an NRC letter to Baxter on September 17, 2007, OI substantiated, based on the evidence developed during its investigation and a related NRC inspection, that certain Baxter employees, including a first-level supervisor (superintendent), deliberately violated NRC requirements as evidenced by the following:

(1)Certain maintenance checks/inspections of the irradiator were not conducted at the Baxter facility, during the period of December 1, 2003 to April 24, 2006, contrary to 10 CFR 36.61(a);

(2)the records associated with these maintenance checks/inspections were inaccurate contrary to 10 CFR 30.9;

(3)the annual performance (training) tests for two individuals were not performed as required in 2005, contrary to 10 CFR 36.51(d); and,

(4)the records associated with these two annual performance tests were inaccurate, contrary to 10 CFR 30.9. The September 17, 2007 letter offered Baxter the opportunity to either attend a Predecisional Enforcement Conference or to request use of ADR, to resolve this matter. In response to the September 17, 2007 letter, Baxter requested the use of ADR to resolve this matter with the NRC. On December 6, 2007, the NRC and Baxter met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the enforcement action. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. III During that ADR session, a settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the settlement agreement consisted of the following: A. The NRC and Baxter Healthcare of Puerto Rico (Baxter) agree that certain Baxter employees, including a first-level supervisor (superintendent), deliberately violated NRC requirements as evidenced by the following:

(1)Certain maintenance checks/inspections of the irradiator were not conducted at the Baxter facility, during the period December 1, 2003 to April 24, 2006, contrary to 10 CFR 36.61(a); and,

(2)the records associated with these maintenance checks/inspections were inaccurate contrary to 10 CFR 30.9; B. The NRC maintains that additional deliberate violations of NRC requirements occurred in that

(1)annual performance (training) tests for two individuals were not performed as required in 2005, contrary to 10 CFR 36.51(d); and,

(2)the records associated with these two annual performance tests were inaccurate, contrary to 10 CFR 30.9. Baxter maintains that based on their investigation of these issues that the evidence available to Baxter did not show that these violations occurred. The NRC and Baxter agree to disagree relative to these violations of 10 CFR 36.51(d) and associated record requirements; C. Baxter took multiple corrective actions to address the violations, as documented in Baxter's letters dated November 30, 2007, February 2, 2007, November 20, 2006, and November 3, 2006, including:

(1)Revising appropriate procedures to require a second person for implementation of the maintenance checks/inspections, as well as a second signature to verify completion;

(2)revising procedure records to include attaching the computer printout from the console's Programmable Logic Computer to confirm that certain event checks were conducted;

(3)training all irradiator operators on good documentation practices;

(4)completing annual performance tests and written tests for all irradiator operators in November 2006;

(5)conducting two independent reviews of the irradiator's operation;

(6)interviewing all irradiator operators to determine whether similar issues have occurred of which Baxter is not aware;

(7)training all irradiator operators on the methods to report inappropriate behavior;

(8)in consultation with the irradiator manufacturer, reviewing monthly and weekly maintenance inspection tests to affirm the need and frequency of the tests, and to explore methods to make the tests less cumbersome;

(9)taking appropriate disciplinary action against the responsible individuals, commensurate with their actions;

(10)Plant General Manager attending monthly management meetings that discuss identified concerns;

(11)implementing the “Dupont STOP” peer observation and feedback process to focus on behavior change to improve safety; and,

(12)implementing the “Toyota 5S” process, adding a 6th S for Safety to improve facility performance and safety; D. During the ADR mediation session, Baxter recognized an opportunity for additional corrective actions to address the work environment concerns that were described in the NRC letter dated September 17, 2007. Therefore, Baxter agreed to take the following actions to sensitize the gamma sterilization department managers, supervisors, and employees to the importance of fostering and maintaining a safety culture which encourages all department employees to identify safety concerns and inappropriate behavior. These actions will consist of: 1. Using an independent outside organization to conduct a safety culture assessment of the gamma sterilization department and include any identified recommendations in the Baxter corrective action program. This will be completed by June 30, 2008. The results will be communicated, as appropriate, to department employees and will be made available for NRC review during inspections; 2. Conducting in-person training of the gamma sterilization department employees concerning raising safety issues without fear of retaliation, stressing the importance of radiological safety. This will be completed by June 30, 2008. Baxter will provide a lesson plan for this training activity to the NRC at least 30 days prior to conducting the training; 3. Issuing a lessons-learned letter from the Plant General Manager to the gamma sterilization department employees regarding the violations described herein, and the underlying causes. This will be completed by March 31, 2008; and, 4. Evaluating annual irradiator operator performance tests to ensure that they are consistent with Baxter's commitment to foster a safety conscious work environment; E. Baxter agreed to send a letter to the NRC, within 30 days of completion of all of the actions specified in Items C and D, informing the NRC that these actions are complete; F. In light of the actions Baxter took as described in Item C, and those actions Baxter has committed to take as described in Items D and E, as well as Baxter's agreement to pay a $15,000 civil penalty, the NRC agreed to characterize the violations as one Severity Level III problem with three examples, rather than issuance of separate civil penalties for each of the violations. The NRC will issue a letter with the aforementioned Notice of Violation, Civil Penalty, and a Confirmatory Order to Baxter confirming the commitments set forth herein. The letter, the Notice of Violation, Civil Penalty and the Confirmatory Order will be publicly available in ADAMS, and will appear on the NRC “Significant Enforcement Actions” Web site; and G. Baxter agreed to the issuance of the letter, the Notice of Violation, Civil Penalty, and the Confirmatory Order confirming this agreement, and also agrees to waive any request for a hearing regarding the aforementioned Confirmatory Order. On February 15, 2008, the Licensee, Baxter, consented to issuing this Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. The Licensee further agreed that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing. IV Since Baxter has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through the NRC's confirmation of the commitments as outlined in this Order. I find that Baxter's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that the Licensee's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and Baxter's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30 and 35, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately that License No. 52-21175-01 is modified as follows: A. Baxter will pay a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000 for the violation described in the accompanying NOV. The method of payment is described in the letter transmitting this Order, as well as in NUREG/BR-0254; B. Baxter will use an independent outside organization to conduct a safety culture assessment of the gamma sterilization department and include any identified recommendations in the Baxter corrective action program. This will be completed by June 30, 2008. The results will be communicated, as appropriate, to department employees and will be made available for NRC review during inspections; C. Baxter will conduct in-person training of the gamma sterilization department employees concerning raising safety issues without fear of retaliation, stressing the importance of radiological safety. This will be completed by June 30, 2008. Baxter will provide a lesson plan for this training activity to the NRC at least 30 days prior to conducting the training; D. Baxter will issue a lessons-learned letter from the Plant General Manager to the gamma sterilization department employees regarding the violations described herein, and the underlying causes. This will be completed by March 31, 2008: E. Baxter will evaluate annual irradiator operator performance tests to ensure that they are consistent with Baxter's commitment to foster a safety conscious work environment; F. Baxter will send a letter to the NRC, within 30 days of completion of all of the actions specified in Sections V.A-E of this order, informing the NRC that these actions are complete; and G. Baxter will implement the procedures, training, and other actions identified in Section III.C of this Order. The NRC Region I Regional Administrator may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Baxter of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Baxter, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or, in some cases, to mail copies on electronic optical storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements associated with E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline the requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any NRC proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances when the requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate also is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for a hearing through EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its document through EIE. To be timely, electronic filings must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request is filed so that they may obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by

(1)first-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their works. If a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). In the absence of any request for a hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, this Order shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the effective date of this order. Dated this the 26th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marc L. Dapas, Deputy Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4716 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-368] Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an exemption from Section 50.46 of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-6, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), for operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would allow the ANO-2 to use Optimized ZIRLO TM , an advanced alloy fuel cladding material for pressurized-water reactors. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated April 24, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071220267). The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed so that Entergy can use Optimized ZIRLO TM , an advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding and other assembly structural components at the ANO-2. Section 50.46 of 10 CFR and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, make no provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since the chemical composition of the Optimized ZIRLO TM alloy differs from the specifications for zircaloy or ZIRLO, a plant-specific exemption is required to allow the use of the Optimized ZIRLO TM alloy as a cladding material or in other assembly structural components at the ANO-2. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, are to ensure that facilities have adequate acceptance criteria for the emergency core cooling system (ECCS), and to ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen generation are appropriately limited during a loss-of-coolant accident

(LOCA)and conservatively accounted for in the ECCS evaluation model, respectively. Neither 10 CFR 50.46 nor 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, explicitly allows the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel rod cladding material or for other assembly structural components. Topical Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, “Optimized ZIRLO TM ,” which was approved by the NRC in July 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062080569), demonstrated that the effectiveness of the ECCS will not be affected by a change from zircaloy to Optimized ZIRLO TM . In addition, as a condition for the approval of WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, additional data was provided by Westinghouse by letters dated January 4, and November 6, 2007, and February 5, 2008, that demonstrated that the Baker-Just equation (used in the ECCS evaluation model to determine the rate of energy release, cladding oxidation, and hydrogen generation) is conservative in all post-LOCA scenarios with respect to Optimized ZIRLO TM advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material or in other assembly structural components. The licensee currently uses and will continue to use NRC-approved methods for the reload design process for ANO-2 reloads with Optimized ZIRLO TM . If the exemption is issued details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the ANO-2 dated June 16, 1977. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on January 27, 2008, the staff consulted with the Arkansas State official, Mr. Bernard Beville of the Department of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated April 24, 2007. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Alan B. Wang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-4691 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-021] Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Standard Design Certification of the US-APWR On December 31, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received a design certification application from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Ltd., dated December 31, 2007, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and Subpart B, “Standard Design Certification,” of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 52, *al Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” A notice of receipt and availability of this application was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3495) on January 18, 2008. The NRC staff has determined that MHI has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR Part 52 that is acceptable for docketing. The docket number established for this application is 52-021. The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the design certification application. Docketing of the design certification application does not preclude the NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. A notice relating to the rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 52.51 for design certification, including provisions for participation of the public and other parties, will be published in the future. The US-APWR design is an approximately 1,700 megawatts electric, four loop, advanced pressurized water reactor (APWR). MHI developed the US-APWR based on technologies for a 1,538 megawatts electric APWR planned for use in Japan. The US-APWR is based on the latest technologies to improve plant efficiency, reduce plant building volume, and provide a 24-month fuel cycle. The US-APWR application includes the entire power generation complex, except those elements and features considered site-specific. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert.html.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jeffrey A. Ciocco, Sr. Project Manager, US-APWR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-4718 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 110-05711 (Import); 110-05710 (Export)] Requests for Licenses To Import and Export Radioactive Waste; Extension of Time for Comment and Intervention On February 11, 2008, the Commission issued notices on a Request for a License to Import Radioactive Waste and a Request for a License to Export Radioactive Waste. 73 FR 7764-7766. The import/export applications were filed by EnergySolutions, Inc. The notices stated that any written comments and requests for hearing or intervention on the import/export applications should be submitted within 30 days after publication of the notices in the **Federal Register** . In response to a number of requests for an extension of this time period, the Commission is issuing a Notice Extending the Period of Time to Comment and Request a Hearing or Intervention on the import/export applications filed by EnergySolutions, Inc. Written comments and a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed by June 10, 2008. Requests for hearing must be filed in accordance with the procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 110, subpart H. This Notice is issued pursuant to my authority under 10 CFR 110.88. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-4752 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-286] Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-64, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), to withdraw its October 24, 2007, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-64 for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, located in Westchester County, New York. The proposed amendment would have revised the refueling water storage tank low-low level alarm setpoint. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68212). However, by letter dated February 8, 2008, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated October 24, 2007, and the licensee's letter dated February 8, 2008, which withdrew the application for a license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-4689 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-82] Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated February 21, 2006, with supplemental letters dated May 3 and September 27, 2007, and January 25, 2008, for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for the Wolf Creek Generating Station, located in Coffey County, Kansas. The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification

(TS)5.5.9, “Steam Generator

(SG)Tube Surveillance Program,” to exclude portions of the steam generator tube below the top of the tubesheet from periodic tube inspections based on the application of structural analysis and leak rate evaluation results to re-define the primary-to-secondary pressure boundary. In addition, there were also proposed changes to add new reporting requirements to TS 5.6.10, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.” The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, on the above proposed amendment application, that was published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18377). However, by letter dated February 14, 2008, the licensee withdrew the proposed amendment. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated February 21, 2006, with supplemental letters dated May 3 and September 27, 2007, and January 25, 2008, and the licensee's letter dated February 14, 2008, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Balwant K. Singal, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-4687 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 28183; 812-13418] JPMorgan Trust I, et al.; Notice of Application March 4, 2008. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) under the Act. *Summary of Application:* Applicants request an order to permit funds of funds relying on rule 12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain financial instruments. *Applicants:* JPMorgan Trust I, JPMorgan Trust II, JPMorgan Insurance Trust, J. P Morgan Mutual Fund Group, J. P Morgan Mutual Fund Investment Trust, J. P Morgan Fleming Mutual Fund Group, Inc., Undiscovered Managers Funds, JPMorgan Institutional Trust, J. P Morgan Series Trust II (collectively, the “Trusts”), J. P Morgan Investment Management, Inc. (“JPMIM”)), JPMorgan Investment Advisors, Inc. (“JPMIA”), Security Capital Research & Management Incorporated (“Security Capital,” collectively with JPMIM and JPMIA, the “Advisors”), and JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. (the “Distributor”). *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on August 9, 2007, and amended on November 21, 2007 and January 30, 2008. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. *Hearing or Notification of Hearing:* An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 31, 2008 and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1520; Applicants, c/o Jessica K. Ditullio, JPMorgan Funds, 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio 43271. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis Reich, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6919, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0104 (telephone

(202)551-8090). Applicants' Representations 1. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust, a Maryland corporation or a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trusts offer separate series (“Funds of Funds”) that may invest in other registered open-end management investment companies in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act and rule 12d1-2 under the Act (“Underlying Funds” and together with the Funds of Funds, “Funds”). 1 Applicants propose that the Funds of Funds be permitted to invest in financial instruments that may not be considered securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (“Other Investments”) and are consistent with the investment objective of a Funds of Funds. 2 1 Applicants request that the relief apply to all existing and future series of the Trusts and any other registered open-end management investment companies and their series that are in the same group of investment companies, as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act, as the Trusts. All Funds that currently intend to rely on the order have been named as applicants. Any other existing or future entity that relies on the order in the future will do so only in accordance with the terms and conditions in the application. 2. The Advisors are Delaware or Ohio corporations that are indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware bank holding company holding company. The Advisors are registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serve as investment adviser to the Funds. The Distributor, a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Act (“Exchange Act”) and serves as the distributor for the Funds. Applicants Legal Analysis 1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered investment company (“acquiring company”) may acquire securities of another investment company (“acquired company”) if such securities represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with the securities of other investment companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered open-end investment company may sell its securities to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies. 2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if:

(i)The acquiring company and acquired company are part of the same group of investment companies;

(ii)the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper;

(iii)the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and

(iv)the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end management investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or

(G)of the Act. 3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities issued by another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper:

(1)Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act;

(2)securities (other than securities issued by an investment company); and

(3)securities issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2, “securities” means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act. 4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. 5. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would comply with the provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds of Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of trustees of a Fund of Funds, including a majority of the trustees who are not interested persons, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, will find that the advisory fees, if any, charged under the contract are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to any Underlying Fund's advisory contract or the advisory contract of any other investment company in which the Funds of Funds may invest. Such a finding, and the basis upon which it was made, will be recorded fully in the minute books of the Fund of Funds. 2. Each Fund of Funds will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, except for paragraph (a)(2), to the extent that it restricts any Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the application. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4616 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57425; File No. SR-ISE-2008-19] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program To Permit the Listing of Additional Series March 4, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 3, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504, Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program, to permit the Exchange to list strike prices for Quarterly Options Series (“QOS”) in exchange traded fund (“ETF”) options that fall within a percentage range (30%) above and below the price of the underlying ETF. Additionally, upon demonstrated customer interest, the Exchange also will be permitted to open additional strike prices of QOS in ETF options that are more than 30% above or below the current price of the ETF. Market Makers trading for their own account will not be considered when determining customer interest under this provision. In addition to the initial listed series, the Exchange may list up to sixty

(60)additional series per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options. Further, the proposal includes a delisting program to be undertaken by the Exchange in connection with QOS in ETF options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.ise.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this rule filing is to amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504, Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program to allow the Exchange to open additional strike prices of QOS in ETF options that are within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of the underlying ETF on the preceding business day. Additionally, upon demonstrated customer interest, the Exchange also will be permitted to open additional strike prices of QOS in ETF options that are more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying ETF. Market Makers trading for their own account will not be considered when determining customer interest under this provision. The Exchange will be permitted to list up to sixty

(60)additional series per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options. On May 2, 2006, the Exchange filed with the Commission a pilot program proposal to permit the listing and trading of QOS in options on indexes or options on ETFs that satisfy the applicable listing criteria under ISE rules. 5 QOS trade based on calendar quarters that end in March, June, September and December. The Exchange lists QOS that expire at the end of the next consecutive four calendar quarters, as well as the fourth quarter of the next calendar year. For example, if the Exchange were trading QOS in iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”) in the month of April 2008, it would list series at the end of the second quarter 2008 (June), third quarter 2008 (September), fourth quarter 2008 (December) and first quarter 2009 (March) and fourth quarter 2009 (December). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54113 (July 7, 2006), 71 FR 39694 (July 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-24) (“Pilot Program Approval Order”). Under the pilot program, the Exchange lists QOS in up to five currently listed option classes that are either options on ETFs or indexes. The Exchange also is permitted to list QOS in any options class that is selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar pilot program under their respective rules. Currently, the Exchange lists QOS in five ETF options:

(1)Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQQ”);

(2)IWM;

(3)DIAMONDS Trust, Series 1 (“DIA”);

(4)Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts/SPDRs (“SPY”); and

(5)Energy Select SPDR (“XLE”). The average trading volume and total volume for QOS in IWM options significantly exceeds the volumes for QOS in other ETF options that are listed and traded on the Exchange. The chart below provides trading volume figures for the fourth quarter in 2007, demonstrating that QOS in IWM options are by far the most popular and heavily traded QOS on the Exchange. QOS October 2007 ADV Total vol. November 2007 ADV Total vol. December 2007 ADV Total vol. IWM 19,132 440,035 23,529 494,107 28,970 579,399 QQQQ 7,943 182,689 12,510 262,707 18,856 377,123 SPY 3,740 86,022 15,067 316,399 19,984 399,686 DIA 709 16,314 1,671 35,092 2,202 44,043 XLE 778 17,901 6,141 128,966 1,925 38,507 Over time, the Exchange has continually received requests from market participants to add additional strike prices for QOS in IWM options that would be outside of the price range for setting strikes as provided under Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504 (hereinafter “+/−$5 range”). 6 6 Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504 provides that the Exchange shall list strike prices for a QOS that are within $5 from the closing price of the underlying on the preceding day. Investors and other market participants have advised the Exchange that they are buying and selling QOS in IWM options to trade volatility. In order to adequately replicate the desired volatility exposure, these market participants need to trade several IWM options series, many having strike prices that fall outside of the +/−$5 range currently allowed under the QOS rules. In addition, other participants have advised the Exchange that their investment strategies involve trading options tied to a particular option “delta,” 7 rather than a particular level of the underlying security or index. At issue is the fact that delta depends on both the relative difference between the level of the underlying security or index and the option strike price, and time to expiration. For example, with IWM trading at $85 per share, the strike price corresponding to a “25-delta” IWM call (i.e., a call option with a delta of 25) with one month to expiration would be 89. However, the strike price corresponding to a “25-delta” IWM call with 3 months to expiration would be 93, and the strike price of a “25-delta” IWM call with 1 year to expiration would be 106. In short, ISE has been advised that the +/−$5 range for QOS in IWM options is insufficient to satisfy customer demand. 7 “Delta” is a measure of how an option price will change in response to a $1 price change in the underlying security or index. For example, an ABC option with a delta of “50” can be expected to change by $0.50 in response to a $1 change in the price of ABC. In order to meet customer demand, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504, which governs the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504 to allow the Exchange to open additional strike prices of QOS in ETF options that are within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of the underlying ETF Shares as defined in Rule 502(h) on the preceding business day. The Exchange also will be permitted to open additional strike prices of QOS in ETF options that are more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying ETF, provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers. Market Makers trading for their own account will not be considered when determining customer interest under this proposed provision. The Exchange will be permitted to list up to sixty

(60)additional series per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options. The Exchange also is proposing to add new paragraph

(g)to Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504, which will set forth a delisting policy. Specifically, with respect to QOS in ETF options, the Exchange will, on a monthly basis, review series that are outside a range of five

(5)strikes above and five

(5)strikes below the current price of the underlying ETF, and delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series having a:

(1)Strike higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; or

(2)strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month. To illustrate how the proposed delisting program will work, assume that IWM closed at $70 on the day the Exchange conducts the monthly review of QOS in ETF options. Series having strike prices above $75 and below $65 would be reviewed by the Exchange for possible delisting. Assume that the Exchange lists the following QOS in IWM options that expire in June 2008: Calls—Jun 08 exp Strike Open Interest? Puts—Jun 08 exp Strike Open Interest? 62 No 62 No. 63 No 63 Yes. 64 Yes 64 Yes. ***** ***** ***** ***** 76 Yes 76 Yes. 77 Yes 77 Yes. 78 Yes 78 Yes. 79 Yes 79 Yes. 80 Yes 80 Yes. 81 Yes 81 Yes. 82 Yes 82 Yes. 83 No 83 No. 84 No 84 No. 85 No 85 Yes. 86 Yes 86 No. 87 Yes 87 Yes. 88 Yes 88 Yes. 89 Yes 89 No. 90 Yes 90 No. 91 No 91 No. 92 No 92 No. 93 No 93 No. The Exchange would delist the first series listed above, as well as the last three: $62, $91, $92 and $93. The Exchange would not, however, delist the $83 and $84 series because there are series having open interest with strike prices higher than these two series. In addition, the Exchange would not delist the $63 series because there is open interest in the put series. Notwithstanding the proposed delisting policy, customer requests to add strikes and/or maintain strikes in QOS in ETF options in series eligible for delisting shall be granted. Further, in connection with the proposed delisting policy, if the Exchange identifies series for delisting, the Exchange shall notify other options exchanges with similar delisting policies regarding eligible series for listing, and shall work with such other exchanges to develop a uniform list of series to be delisted, so as to ensure uniform series delisting of multiply listed QOS in ETF options. It is expected that all options exchanges that have a QOS Pilot Program will adopt the proposed delisting policy. The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series that will result from this proposal. Further, as proposed, the Exchange notes that this rule change will become part of the pilot program and, going forward, will be considered by the Commission when the Exchange seeks to renew or make permanent the pilot program in the future. 8 8 To the extent the Commission views the proposed rule change as an expansion of the pilot program, thus triggering the requirement under the terms of the Pilot Program Approval Order that the Exchange submit a pilot program report, the Exchange notes that it submitted a report on June 27, 2007, in connection with its filing to extend the pilot program through July 10, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56031 (July 9, 2007), 72 FR 38637 (July 13, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of SR-ISE-2007-53). 2. Statutory Basis Because the additional new series can be added without presenting capacity problems and because the Exchange has proposed a delisting policy with respect to QOS in ETF options, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 9 of the Act's requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:

(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 11 The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on a similar proposal recently approved by the Commission. 12 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-57410 (March 3, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-96). The Commission has determined that waiving the 30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and will promote competition because such waiver will allow the Exchange to list additional series in Quarterly Options at the same time as other exchanges. 13 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-ISE-2008-19 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-19. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-19 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4599 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11182 and # 11183] Missouri Disaster # MO-00021 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Missouri dated 03/03/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, High Winds, Hail and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 01/07/2008 through 01/10/2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* 03/03/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 05/02/2008. *Economic Injury

(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 12/03/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Webster. *Contiguous Counties:* Missouri: Christian, Dallas, Douglas, Greene, Laclede, Wright. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.875 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.937 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11182 B and for economic injury is 11183 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is ___ Missouri. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: March 3, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4581 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57421; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-24] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Amending Its Schedule of Fees and Charges Applicable to the Option Strategy Executions Pilot Program March 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 26, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On February 29, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. 3 NYSE Arca has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A), 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 made clarifying changes to the original filing. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE Arca proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges in order to extend the pilot program that applies to Option Strategy Executions (“Pilot Program”) until March 1, 2009. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nysearca.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program that applies to Option Strategy Executions until March 1, 2009. 6 The transactions included as part of the Pilot Program include reversals and conversions, 7 dividend spreads, 8 box spreads, 9 short stock interest spreads, 10 and merger spreads. 11 Because the referenced Options Strategy Transactions are generally executed by professionals whose profit margins are generally narrow, the Pilot Program caps the transaction fees associated with such executions at $750 per strategy execution that are executed on the same trading day in the same option class. In addition, there is also a monthly cap of $25,000 per initiating firm for all strategy executions. The Exchange believes that by keeping fees low, the Exchange is able to attract liquidity by accommodating these transactions. Extending the Pilot Program until March 1, 2009 will allow the Exchange to keep these fees low and thus continue to attract liquidity. 6 The current rule text is substantially similar to the original filing approved in 2007. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55414 (March 7, 2007), 72 FR 11418 (March 13, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-25). 7 Reversals and conversions are transactions that employ calls, puts and the underlying stock to lock in a nearly risk free profit. Reversals are established by combining a short stock position with a short put and a long call position that shares the same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in the underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls sharing the same strike and expiration. 8 Dividend spreads are trades involving deep in the money options that exploit pricing differences arising around the time a stock goes ex-dividend. 9 A Box spread is a strategy that synthesizes long and short stock positions to create a profit. Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike is combined with a short call and long put at a different strike to create synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions, respectively. 10 A short stock interest spread is a spread that uses two deep in the money put options of the same class followed by the exercise of the resulting long position in order to establish a short stock interest arbitrage position. 11 A merger spread is a transaction executed pursuant to a strategy involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of options of the same class and expiration date, but with different strike prices followed by the exercise of the resulting long option position. OTP Holders and OTP Firms who wish to benefit from the fee cap will be required to submit to the Exchange forms with supporting documentation ( *e.g.* , clearing firm transaction data) to qualify for the cap. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 12 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 13 in particular, in that it is intended to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that, as proposed, the cap on transaction fees for Strategy Executions applies equally to each member (ETP holder) of the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that by keeping fees low with the proposed cap, the Exchange is able to attract liquidity by accommodating these transactions. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 15 because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 16 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 16 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on February 29, 2008, the date on which NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-24 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-24. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-24 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4556 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57417; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-26] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent Two Pilot Programs That Increase Position and Exercise Limits on Equity Options March 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 29, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange seeks to make permanent two pilot programs that increase position and exercise limits for equity options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange seeks to make permanent two pilot programs that increase position and exercise limits for equity options. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.8, Position Limits, and Rule 6.9, Exercise Limits, to permanently establish the increased limits of the two pilot programs. Rule 6.8 subjects equity options to one of five different position limits depending on the trading volume and outstanding shares of the underlying security. Rule 6.9 establishes exercise limits for equity options at the same levels as the applicable position limits. The first pilot program, the “Rule 6.8 Pilot Program,” commenced on February 25, 2005, and provides for an increase to the standard (or “non-pilot”) positions and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on the PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”). 5 5 The Rule 6.8 Pilot Program was effective upon filing on February 25, 2005. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51286 (March 1, 2005), 70 FR 11297 (March 8, 2005) (SR-PCX-2003-55). The Pilot Program has been extended five times for six month periods by the Commission, and expires on March 1, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52263 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 49003 (August 22, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-95); 53350 (February 22, 2006), 71 FR 9406 (March 1, 2006) (SR-PCX-2006-08); 54385 (August 30, 2006), 71 FR 53150 (September 8, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-49); 55374 (February 26, 2007), 72 FR 9823 (March 5, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-19); and 56264 (August 15, 2007), 72 FR 47110 (August 22 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-84). The second pilot program, the “iShares ® Russell 2000 ® Index Fund (`IWM') Option Pilot Program,” commenced on January 29, 2007, and increases the position and exercise limits for IWM options from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts. 6 6 The proposal that established the IWM Pilot Program was effective upon filing. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55185 (January 29, 2007), 72 FR 5481 (February 6, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-10). The IWM Pilot Program was subsequently extended and is due to expire on March 1, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56021 (July 6, 2007), 72 FR 38115 (July 12, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-58); and 57174 (January 18, 2008), 73 FR 4655 (January 25, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-07). The IWM Option Pilot Program doubles the position and exercise limits for IWM options under the Rule 6.8 Pilot Program. *See* NYSEArca Rule 6.8, Commentary .06(g). Absent both of these pilot programs, the standard position and exercise limit for IWM options is 75,000 option contracts. The standard position limits were last increased nine years ago, on December 31, 1998. 7 Since that time, there has been a steady increase in the number of accounts industry-wide that

(a)approach the position limit;

(b)exceed the position limits; and

(c)are granted an exemption to the applicable position limit by either NYSE Arca, or another options exchange. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31, 1998) 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-33). NYSE Arca has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to either pilot program. In addition, the Exchange is unaware of any violations of the position and exercise limits under the pilot programs during the period in which both pilot programs were in effect. Since the last position limit increase, there has been an exponential increase in the overall volume of exchange traded options. Part of this volume is attributable to a corresponding increase in the number of overall market participants. This growth in market participants has in turn brought about additional depth and increased liquidity in exchange traded options. Further, since the last position limit increase, and throughout the duration of the two pilot programs, the Exchange has not encountered any regulatory issues regarding the applicable position limits, and states that there is a lack of evidence of market manipulation schemes, which justifies making permanent the Rule 6.8 and IWM Option Pilot Programs. As the anniversary of listed options trading approaches its 35th year, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and option position reporting requirements at the Exchange, at other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. The Exchange's surveillance procedures include daily monitoring of firm and customer position reports via automated surveillance techniques to identify potential violations of position limits for options and their underlying securities. Accordingly, the Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures (which have been significantly enhanced since the last position limit increase in 1999) and reporting procedures, in conjunction with the financial requirements and risk management review procedures already in place at the clearing firms and the Options Clearing Corporation, will serve to adequately address any concerns the Commission may have with respect to account(s) engaging in any manipulative schemes or assuming too high a level of risk exposure. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in an equity option. The Exchange expects continued options volume growth as opportunities for investors to participate in the option markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the non-pilot position and exercise limits are restrictive, and returning to those limits will hamper fair and effective competition between the listed options markets and the over-the-counter markets. Equity option position limits have been gradually expanded from 1,000 contracts in 1973 to the current level of 75,000 contracts for the largest and most actively traded equity options. To date, there have been no adverse affects on the markets as a result of these past increases in the limits for equity option contracts. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:

(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on a similar proposal recently approved by the Commission. 11 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57352 (February 19, 2008), 73 FR 10076 (February 25, 2008) (order granting accelerated approval to SR-CBOE-2008-07). The Rule 6.8 Pilot Program and the IWM Option Pilot Program were scheduled to expire on March 1, 2008. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the position and exercise limits to remain at consistent levels during the transition from the pilot programs to permanent status. 12 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing. 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-26 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-26. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-26 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4557 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57420; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Dividend, Merger, and Short Stock Interest Strategies Fee Cap Program March 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 27, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Phlx has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A), 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to extend for a period of one year, until March 1, 2009, the pilot programs for:

(1)The $1,000 and $25,000 fee caps on equity option transaction and comparison charges on dividend, 5 merger, 6 and short stock interest 7 strategies; and

(2)the license fee of $0.05 per contract side imposed on dividend and short stock interest strategies, as described below. The current fee caps and $0.05 per contract side license fee are in effect as a pilot program that is scheduled to expire on March 1, 2008. 8 Other than extending the pilot program for an additional one-year period until March 1, 2009, no other changes to the Exchange's current dividend, merger and short stock interest strategy program, which includes the $0.05 per contract side license fee, are being proposed at this time. 5 For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a “ dividend strategy” as transactions done to achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed prior to the date on which the underlying stock goes ex-dividend. *See, e.g.,* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54174 (July 19, 2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-40). 6 For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a “merger strategy” as transactions done to achieve a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options of the same class and expiration date, executed prior to the date on which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective form of consideration, *i.e.,* cash or stock. *See id.* 7 For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a “short stock interest strategy” as transactions done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same class. *See id.* 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55358 (February 27, 2007), 72 FR 9828 (March 5, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-14). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx-rule-fil.htm.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Currently, the Exchange imposes a fee cap on equity option transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies executed on the same trading day in the same options class. Specifically, Registered Options Trader (“ROT”) and specialist net equity option transaction and comparison charges are capped at $1,000 for dividend, merger, and short stock interest strategies executed on the same trading day in the same options class. 9 In addition, there is a $25,000 per member organization fee cap on equity option transaction and comparison charges incurred in one month for dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies combined. The $1,000 and $25,000 fee caps are implemented after any applicable rebates are applied to ROT and specialist equity option transaction and comparison charges occurring as part of a dividend, merger, or short stock interest strategy. 10 9 *See id.* 10 Currently, the Exchange rebates $0.08 per contract side for ROT executions and $0.07 per contract side for specialist executions in connection with trades occurring as part of a dividend, merger or short stock interest strategy. In addition, the Exchange assesses a license fee of $0.05 per contract side for dividend and short stock interest strategies in connection with certain products that carry license fees, if applicable. 11 The applicable license fee is assessed on every transaction and is not subject to the $1,000 or $25,000 fee caps described above, nor does it count towards reaching the $1,000 or $25,000 fee caps. 11 For a complete list of these product symbols, see the Exchange's $60,000 Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Cap Fee Schedule. The purpose of extending the pilot program for the fee caps on equity option transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies and the $0.05 per contract fee imposed on dividend and short stock interest strategies until March 1, 2009 is to continue to attract additional liquidity to the Exchange and to remain competitive with other options exchanges in connection with these types of options strategies. In addition, the purpose of extending the pilot is to recoup the license fees owed in connection with the trading of products that carry license fees. Even with the assessment of the $0.05 license fee per contract side, the fee caps and rebates should continue to encourage specialists and ROTs to provide liquidity for these types of options strategies. This proposal is scheduled to continue the fee for trades settling on or after March 1, 2008 and will remain in effect as a pilot program until March 1, 2009. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 12 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 13 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees, and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the current fee caps is beneficial to its members by providing additional trading opportunities at an efficient cost. Additionally, the proposal allows the Exchange to recoup the license fees owed in connection with the trading of products that carry license fees. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 15 since it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2008-16 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-16. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2008-16 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Market, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4558 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6126] Notice of Information Collection Under Emergency Review: DS-7646, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship, New OMB 1405-xxxx AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice of request for emergency OMB approval. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship. • *OMB Control Number:* None. • *Type of Request:* Emergency Review. • *Originating Office:* Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Office of UNESCO Affairs, Executive Secretariat U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (IO/UNESCO). • *Form Number:* DS-7646. • *Respondents:* U.S. college and university students applying for fellowship. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 100. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 100. • *Average Hours per Response:* 10. • *Total Estimated Burden:* 1000 hours. • *Frequency:* On occasion. • *Obligation to respond:* Required to obtain or retain a benefit. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Emergency review and approval of this collection has been requested from OMB by April 1, 2008. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503. Fax number 202-395-6974. During the first 60 days of the emergency approval period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. The agency requests written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Comments will be accepted until 60 days from the date that this notice is published in the **Federal Register** . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *dcunesco@state.gov* . • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Office of UNESCO Affairs, 2121 Virginia Avenue, NW., Suite 6200, Washington, DC 20037. • Fax:

(202)663-0035. You must include the DS form number (DS-7646), information collection title, and OMB control number in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Alexander Zemek, Deputy Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, who may be reached at

(202)663-0026. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* Fellowship applicants, U.S. citizen students at U.S. colleges and universities, will submit descriptions of self-designed proposals for brief travel abroad to conduct work that is consistent with UNESCO's substantive mandate to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations. The information will be reviewed for the purpose of identifying the most meritorious proposals, as measured against the published evaluation criteria. *Methodology:* The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Office of UNESCO Affairs, Executive Secretariat U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (IO/UNESCO) will collect this information via electronic submission. Dated: March 5, 2008. Alexander F. Zemek, Deputy Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-4653 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-19-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6128] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Fashioning Kimono: Art Deco and Modernism in Japan” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Fashioning Kimono: Art Deco and Modernism in Japan,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, from on or about April 26, 2008, until on or about July 20, 2008; Tyler Museum of Art, Tyler, Texas, from on or about June 6, 2009, to on or about August 16, 2009; Society of the Four Arts, Palm Beach, Florida, from on or about December 4, 2009, to on or about January 10, 2010; the Memorial Art Gallery, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, from on or about January 30, 2010, to on or about April 11, 2010; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: March 4, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-4659 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6127] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Wiener Werkstatte Jewelry” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “Wiener Werkstatte Jewelry”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Neue Gallerie New York, New York, New York, from on or about March 27, 2008, until on or about June 30, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: February 28, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-4655 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206/EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information Services Data Link. DATES: The meeting will be held March 31-April 4, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Honeywell, 21111 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85036-1111. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

(1)RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036-5133; telephone

(202)833-9339; fax

(202)833-9434; Web site *http://www.rtca.org* ;

(2)Contact Person: Allan Hart, Telephone 1-609-436-1908; Fax 1-609-436-1501. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 206 meeting/EUROCE WG 76. The agenda will include: March 31 • 9 a.m.—Open Plenary • Chairman's remarks and introductions • Review and approve meeting agenda and minutes • Discussion • Coordination with WG78/SC214 • Action Item Review • Schedule for this week • Schedule for next meetings • 10 a.m.—Presentations • Pending • 11 a.m. • SPR and INTEROP April 1 • AIS Subgroup meeting—Meteorology Subgroup meetings April 2 • 9 a.m. • Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings April 3 • Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings Apri1 4 • 9 a.m. • Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings • 10:30 p.m. • Plenary Session • Other Business, Meeting Plans and Dates, Closing Remarks, Adjourn Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 29, 2008. Francisco Estrada C., RTCA Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E8-4518 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on a Proposed U.S. Highway Project in California AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l) (1). These actions relate to a proposed highway project to widen a two-lane conventional highway—State Route 12 in Napa and Solano Counties in the State of California—to four lanes and to convert its western terminus into an interchange. The State Route 12 widening portion of the project is between kilo post 0.0 and R4.2 (post miles 0.0 and R2.6) in Solano County, and between kilo post 0.4 and 5.3 (post mile 0.2 and 3.3) in Napa County. The interchange portion of the project is in Napa County between kilo post 0.0 and 0.4 (post mile 0.0 and 0.2) on State Route 12 and between kilo post 6.7 and 8.7 (post mile 4.2 and 5.4) on State Route 29. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139

(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 8, 2008. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such a claim, then that shorter time period still applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brent, Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis, 510-286-5231, *melanie.brent@dot.ca.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Caltrans prepared an Environmental Assessment on a proposal for a highway and intersection improvement project in Napa and Solano Counties, California. The proposed project would widen the two-lane, conventional highway, State Route 12—from east of the city of Napa, in Napa County to near Red Top Road, west of the city of Fairfield, in Solano County—to four lanes (a distance of 5.7 miles) and convert its western terminus into an interchange. The State Route 12 widening portion of the project is between kilo post 0.0 and R4.2 (post miles 0.0 and R2.6) in Solano County, and between kilo post 0.4 and 5.3 (post mile 0.2 and 3.3) in Napa County. The interchange portion of the project is in Napa County between kilo post 0.0 and 0.4 (post mile 0.0 and 0.2) on State Route 12 and between kilo post 6.7 and 8.7 (post mile 4.2 and 5.4) on State Route 29. The project had two build alternatives pertaining to the design—tight diamond or single point urban-of the State Routes 29/12 interchange and a No Build alternative. The anticipated permits include: Section 7 Incidental Take Statement for the California red-legged frog (from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) under the Federal Endangered Species Act). 401 Water Quality Certification (from the Regional Water Quality Control Board) under section 401 of the Clean Water Act). 404 Individual Permit (from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Public meeting(s) were held in Fairfield on September 13, 2007 and Napa on September 14, 2007. The Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, which were approved on January 31, 2008, and other documents are available for public and agency review at the Caltrans. Address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: *General:* National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal Aid-Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]. *Land:* Landscape and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 219]. *Air:* Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q). *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and section 1536], Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712]. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-11]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-11]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d) (1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act

(FPPA)[7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]; The Uniform Relocation Assistance Act and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. *Hazardous Materials:* Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992 (k). *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.] Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l) (1). Issued on: February 28, 2008. Shawn A. Oliver, South Team Leader. [FR Doc. E8-4425 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)hereby announces that it is seeking regular clearance of the following currently approved information collection activities granted under Emergency Clearance procedures. Before submitting these information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below. DATES: Comments must be received no later than May 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130-0575.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to

(202)493-6216 or

(202)493-6497, or via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at *robert.brogan@dot.gov* or to Ms. Christodoulou at *gina.christodoulou@dot.gov* . Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information collection submission to OMB for approval. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6292) or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163

(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding

(i)whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility;

(ii)the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates;

(iii)ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(iv)ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses). *See* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives:

(i)Reduce reporting burdens;

(ii)ensure that it organizes information collection requirements in a “user friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and

(iii)accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. *See* 44 U.S.C. 3501. Below is a brief summary of the currently approved information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA: *Title:* Solicitation of Applications and Notice of Funds Availability for the Capital Assistance to States—Intercity Rail Service Program. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0575. *Abstract:* On December 16, 2007, President Bush signed Public Law 110-161, The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. As part of this Act, Congress provided $30 million to FRA to award in one or more grants for eligible projects related to capital improvements (fixed facilities and rolling stock) necessary to support improved or new intercity passenger services, and planning activities that lead to the development of a passenger rail corridor investment plan. Funds provided under this grant program may constitute no more than 50 percent of the total cost of a selected project, with the remaining cost funded from other sources. The funding provided under these grants will be made available to grantees on a reimbursement basis. FRA anticipates awarding grants to multiple eligible participants. FRA may choose to award a grant or grants within the available funds in any amount. Funding made available through grants provided under this program, together with funding from other sources that is committed by a grantee as part of a grant agreement, must be sufficient to complete the funded project and achieve the anticipated improvement to intercity passenger rail service. FRA will begin accepting grant applications on Monday, March 18, 2008. Applications may be submitted until the earlier of Wednesday, September 30, 2009, or the date on which all available funds will have been committed under this program. *Form Number(s):* SF-269, SF-270, SF-271. *Affected Public:* States/Their Partners. *Respondent Universe:* 50 States and District of Columbia/Their Partners. *Frequency of Submission:* One-time. *Reporting Burden:* CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual burden cost Application Process 51 States (DC incl.) 7 applications 600 hours 4,200 hours $367,780 Requested Meeting with FRA 51 States (DC incl.) 5 requests/letters 30 minutes 3 hours 129 Actual Meetings 51 States (DC incl.) 5 meetings 2 hours 10 hours 730 Revisions to Grant Applications 51 States (DC incl.) 2 appl. Revisions 40 hours 80 hours 5,840 Environmental Assessment 51 States (DC incl.) 7 Env. Documents 200 hours 1,400 hours 175,000 Consultations with FRA 51 States (DC incl.) 7 consultations 2 hours 14 hours 1,022 Close-Out Procedures 51 States (DC incl.) 7 sets of documents 6 hours 42 hours 1,806 Project Reports 51 States (DC incl.) 7 reports 80 hours 560 hours 40,880 *Total Responses:* 47. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 6,309 hours. *Status:* Regular Review. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 2008. Brenda Horn, Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4705 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration National Rural Transportation Assistance Program Request for Proposal (RFP); Correction AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for proposals; correction. SUMMARY: In the **Federal Register** Notice of February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10237), the Federal Transit Administration published a notice regarding the National Rural Transportation Assistance Program Request for Proposals (RFP). The DATES and **Instruction** sections of this notice should be corrected to read as follows: DATES: Proposals must be submitted electronically by April 11, 2008. VII. Instructions 2. Proposals must be received no later than 5:30 p.m., EST, April 11, 2008. *Effective Date:* This correction takes effect on February 26, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Brown at 202-493-2503, Fax: 202-366-7951, or via e-mail: *Pamela.Brown@dot.gov* , or Lorna Wilson at 202-366-2053; or via e-mail *lorna.wilson@dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC this 4th day of March, 2008. James S. Simpson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4721 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19856] Pipeline Safety: Dangers of Abnormal Snow and Ice Build-Up on Gas Distribution Systems AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin. SUMMARY: Recent events on natural gas distribution system facilities appear to be related to either the stress of snow and ice or malfunction of pressure control equipment due to ice blockage of pressure control equipment vents by ice. This advisory bulletin advises owners and operators of gas pipelines of the need to take steps to prevent damage to pipeline facilities from accumulated snow or ice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Mayberry at

(202)366-5124, or by e-mail at *alan.mayberry@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The accumulation of snow and ice increases the potential for damage to meters and regulators and other pipeline facilities. Several accidents occurring during the winter of 2007/2008 on natural gas distribution system facilities appear to be related to either the stress of snow and ice or malfunction of pressure control equipment due to ice blockage of pressure control equipment vents. Exposed piping at metering and pressure regulating stations, at service regulators, and at propane tanks, are at greatest risk. Damage may result from the stresses imposed by the additional loading of the snow or ice. Damage to facilities may also result from the impact of snow or ice falling from roofs, or ice forming in or on regulators preventing their proper operation, or shoveling snow from roofs to protect dwellings from abnormal snow accumulation. II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-08-03) *To:* Owners and Operators of Petroleum Gas and Natural Gas Facilities in Areas Subject to Heavy Snowfall or Abnormally Icy Weather. *Subject:* Dangers of Abnormal Snow and Ice Build-up on Gas Distribution Systems. *Purpose:* To inform owners and operators of the need

(1)to monitor the potential impact of excessive snow and ice on these facilities; and

(2)to inform the public about possible hazards from snow and ice accumulation on regulators and other pipeline facilities. *Advisory:* PHMSA is advising operators of gas pipeline facilities, regardless of whether those facilities are regulated by PHMSA or state agencies, to consider the following steps to address the safety risks from accumulated snow and ice on pipeline facilities: 1. Notify customers and other entities of the need for caution associated with excessive accumulation and removal of snow and ice. Notice should include the need to clear snow and ice from exhaust and combustion air vents for gas appliances to prevent accumulation of carbon monoxide in buildings or operational problems for the combustion equipment. 2. Pay attention to snow and ice related situations that may cause operational problems for pressure control and other equipment. 3. Monitor the accumulation of moisture in equipment and snow or ice blocking regulator or relief valve vents which could prevent regulators and relief valves from functioning properly. 4. The piping on service regulator sets is susceptible to damage that could result in failure if caution is not exercised in cleaning snow from around the equipment. Where possible, use a broom, instead of a shovel to clear snow off regulators, meters, associated piping, propane tanks, tubing, gauges or other propane system appurtenances. 5. Remind the public to contact the gas company or designated emergency response officials if there is an odor of gas present or if gas appliances are not functioning properly. Also remind the public that, if there is a gas or propane odor, occupants should leave the residence immediately and contact their gas company, propane operator or designated emergency response officials. Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601; 49 CFR 1.53. Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 2008. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 08-999 Filed 3-6-08; 2:18 pm]

Connectionstraces to 57

Traces to 57 documents

U.S. Code