Notices. Notice

48,992 words·~223 min read·/register/2008/03/13/08-1019

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

BILLING CODE 4163-18-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Title: Children's Justice Act Program. *OMB No.:* 0980-0196. *Description:* The Program Instruction, prepared in response to the enactment of the Children's Justice Act (CJA), as set forth in Title II of Pub. L. 108-36, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 2003, provides direction to the States and Territories to accomplish the purposes of assisting States in developing, establishing and operating programs designed to improve:

(1)The handling of child abuse and neglect cases, particularly child sexual abuse and exploitation, in a manner that limits additional trauma to the child victim;

(2)the handling of cases of suspected child abuse or neglect-related fatalities;

(3)the investigation and prosecution of cases of child abuse and neglect, particularly child sexual abuse and exploitation; and

(4)the handling of cases involving children with disabilities or serious health-related problems who are victims of abuse and neglect. This Program Instruction contains information collection requirements that are found in Pub. L. 108-36 at Sections 107(b) and 107(d), and pursuant to receiving a grant award. The information being collected is required by statute to be submitted pursuant to receiving a grant award. The information submitted will be used by the agency to ensure compliance with the statute; to monitor, evaluate and measure grantee achievements in addressing the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect; and to report to Congress. *Respondents:* State Governments Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Application & Annual Report 52 1 60 3,120 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,120. Additional Information Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained 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. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* OMB Comment OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: March 5, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4804 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] 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:* Title IV-E State Plan for the Foster care, Independent Living and Adoption Assistance Programs. *OMB No.:* 0980-0141. *Description:* A State plan is required by sections 471 and 477(b)(2), part IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) for each public child welfare agency requesting Federal funding for foster care, independent living services and adoption assistance under the Act. The State plan is a comprehensive narrative description of the nature and scope of a State's programs and provides assurances the programs will be administered in conformity with the specific requirements stipulated in title IV-E. The plan must include all applicable State statutory, regulatory, or policy references and citations for each requirement as well as supporting documentation. A State may use the pre-print format prepared by the Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families or a different format, on the condition that the format used includes all of the title IV-E State plan requirements of the law. *Respondents:* State and Territorial Agencies (State Agencies) administering or supervising the administration of the title IV-E programs. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Title IV-E State Plan 12 1 15 180 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 180. 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 5, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4805 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0150] Draft Guidance for Industry on Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims.” This draft guidance is intended to assist applicants in developing labeling for cardiovascular outcome claims for drugs that are indicated to treat hypertension. Because blood pressure control is well established as beneficial in preventing serious cardiovascular events, FDA believes that the appropriate use of these drugs can be encouraged by making the connection between lower blood pressure and improved cardiovascular outcomes more explicit in labeling. This draft guidance is intended to recommend standard labeling for antihypertensive drugs except where differences are clearly supported by clinical data. DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi Kozeli, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4183, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims.” On June 15, 2005, the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee met in open public session to discuss class labeling for cardiovascular outcome claims for drugs that are indicated to treat hypertension. With few exceptions, current labeling for antihypertensive drug products only includes the information that these drugs are indicated to reduce blood pressure; the labeling does not include information on the clinical benefits related to cardiovascular outcomes expected from such blood pressure reduction. However, blood pressure control is well established as beneficial in preventing serious cardiovascular events, and inadequate treatment of hypertension is acknowledged as a significant public health problem. The committee voiced a broad consensus in favor of labeling changes to describe briefly the clinical benefits related to cardiovascular outcomes expected from lowering blood pressure with any antihypertensive drug. The labeling proposed in this draft guidance is consistent with the advisory committee's recommendations. This draft guidance is being made available to afford the public the opportunity to comment on both the intent of the labeling revisions and the specific proposed language. This draft guidance is intended to recommend standard labeling for antihypertensive drugs except where differences are clearly supported by clinical data. After this guidance has been finalized, applicants will be encouraged to submit labeling supplements containing the new language. This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on labeling for cardiovascular outcome claims for drugs indicated to treat hypertension. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either *http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: March 6, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5083 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Privacy Act of 1974; Revision to Existing System of Records; Revised AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS. ACTION: Notification of an Altered System of Records; revised. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, the Health Resources and Services Administration

(HRSA)is publishing notice of a proposal to alter the system of records for the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. This system of records is required to comply with the implementation directives of Public Law 109-129. Records are used for the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program's planning, implementation, evaluation, monitoring, and document storage purposes. HRSA published in the **Federal Register** of August 17, 2007, a document concerning notice of a new system of records, 09-15-0068, C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program (FR. Doc. 07-4019). This document more fully explains the routine uses of records maintained in the system and amends the record retention and disposal policy. Accordingly, the notice is published below in its entirety, as amended. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this revised system of records notice may do so until April 14, 2008. Unless there is a further notice in the **Federal Register** , this revised system of records will become effective on April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please address comments to Health Resources and Services Administration Privacy Act Coordinator, Donn Taylor, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14A-20, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone

(301)443-0204. This is not a toll-free number. Comments received will be available for inspection at this same address from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Burdick, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, HSB, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone

(301)443-7577; fax

(301)594-6095; or e-mail: *jburdick@hrsa.gov* . This is not a toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Health Resources and Services Administration published in the **Federal Register** of August 17, 2007, notice of a new system of records, 09-15-0068, C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (the Act) establishes the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program (the Program) which maintains information related to patients in need of a blood stem cell transplant and potential adult volunteer blood stem cell donors who have agreed to be listed on the registry maintained by the Program. Additionally, the Program maintains information related to the outcomes of patients who have undergone blood stem cell transplantation. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 authorizes the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and provides for the collection, maintenance, and distribution of human blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and for research. The Program consists of four interrelated components each operated under a separate contract. The four components are: the Bone Marrow Coordinating Center; the Cord Blood Coordinating Center; the Office of Patient Advocacy/Single Point of Access; and the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database. The contracts for operation of the Bone Marrow Coordinating Center, Cord Blood Coordinating Center, and Office of Patient Advocacy/Single Point of Access were awarded to the National Marrow Donor Program in September 2006. A single contract for the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database was awarded to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) at the Medical College of Wisconsin in September 2006 as well. As identified by the Act, the Program is charged with: Operating a system for identifying, matching, and facilitating the distribution of bone marrow that is suitably matched to candidate patients; operating a system for identifying, matching, and facilitating the distribution of donated umbilical cord blood units that are suitably matched to candidate patients; providing a means by which transplant physicians, other healthcare professionals, and patients can electronically search for and access all available adult marrow donors available through the Program; recruiting potential adult volunteer marrow donors; coordinating with other Federal programs to maintain and expand medical contingency response capabilities; carrying out informational and educational activities; providing patient advocacy services; providing case management services for potential donors; and collecting, analyzing, and publishing blood stem cell transplantation related data, including patient outcomes data, in a standardized electronic format. This system of records is required to comply with the implementation directives of the Act, Public Law 109-129. The records will be used for the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program's planning, implementation, evaluation, monitoring, and document storage purposes. Dated: February 19, 2008. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator. 09-15-0068 SYSTEM NAME: C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: None. SYSTEM LOCATION: Data collected by the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program (the Program) are maintained by the National Marrow Donor Program

(NMDP)and the Medical College of Wisconsin, contractors for the Program. The Division of Transplantation within the Health Resources and Services Administration oversees the Program and the contracts with the NMDP and Medical College of Wisconsin. Records associated with the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program are located at the National Marrow Donor Program, 3001 Broadway Street, NE., Suite 500, Minneapolis, MN 55413. Additional records associated with the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database component of the Program are located at the Medical College of Wisconsin's Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: 1. Volunteers whose bone marrow, peripheral blood or cord blood donations are to be used for hematopoietic reconstitution or other therapeutic applications on behalf of patients in need. 2. Patients searching for an unrelated donor or who are receiving transplant or ancillary services through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. 3. Recipients of allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Records consist of documents (printed and electronic) containing all information necessary to manage and facilitate patient searches and to track detailed post-transplant clinical status, including documentation and correspondence concerning patients in need of (or recipients of) blood stem cell transplants and volunteers listed on the Program's registry as potential blood stem cell donors. These documents include all information necessary to manage and facilitate patient searches, and to track detailed post-transplant and post-donation clinical status. The following information is maintained in the system: individual identifiers about the recipients and donors (e.g., social security number (voluntary), names, date of birth, etc.); recipient and donor demographics and socio-demographics; recipients' disease, disease history and treatment, transplant procedure details, post-transplantation medical history, events, and complications; donor medical history; donation procedure and blood stem cell product details; long-term follow-up of medical outcomes and assessment of functioning for donors and recipients; provider identifiers; transplant and collection facility identifiers; and, donor management center identifiers. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Public Law 109-129 establishes the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, authorizing the Department to establish by contract a system for identifying, matching, and facilitating bone marrow and cord blood transplants, including recruitment, patient advocacy and maintenance of a stem cell therapeutic outcomes database. PURPOSE(s): The C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program is comprised of the Office of Patient Advocacy/Single Point of Access, the Bone Marrow Coordinating Center, the Cord Blood Coordinating Center, and the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database. The purpose of the system is to support the Program's mission to facilitate and increase access to blood stem cell transplantation. Additionally, information in the system will be used to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation on matters related to the Program and for ongoing monitoring of the Program by the Health Resources and Services Administration to determine the effectiveness of the Program and to guide implementation of the policies and procedures that govern the Program's structure. Records from this system will be used to carry out the statutory charge of the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. Specifically, records vital and attendant to the full scope of activities involved at every stage of the process of facilitation of blood stem cell transplantation or other therapies for recipients suitably matched to biologically unrelated donors; analyzing factors affecting transplant outcomes; monitoring and reporting of adverse events; monitoring and reporting of quality, compliance, and performance indicators; monitoring and reporting on the size and composition of the registry of adult bone marrow donors and size and composition of the umbilical cord blood inventory; and to provide pertinent information to transplant programs, physicians, patients, other entities awarded a contract under Section 379 of the Public Health Service Act, donor registries, and cord blood banks as stated in Public Law 109-129. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Disclosure of records from this system of records may be made as provided in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), and to the following recipients for the purposes stated: 1. Departmental contractors who have been engaged by the Department to assist in accomplishment of a departmental function related to the purposes of this system of records and who have a need to access the records in order to carry out that function. 2. Transplant centers, physicians and staff, and NMDP participating organizations, for the purpose of searching for donors or products and/or facilitating transplants, matching donor blood stem cells with recipients, monitoring participant outcomes, and monitoring compliance of member organizations with contractor requirements. 3. Personnel involved in the care of volunteer blood stem cell donors and management of their participation in the Program. Disclosures of clinically relevant de-identified information contained in certain donor records may be made to transplant physicians, patients or their designated representatives for purposes of facilitating searches for blood stem cell donors or products and/or facilitation of unrelated donor transplants. 4. Disclosures may be made by the contractors for the Office of Patient Advocacy/Single Point of Access, the Bone Marrow Coordinating Center, the Cord Blood Coordinating Center, the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database, NMDP and CIBMTR participating centers to one another as well as participating umbilical cord blood banks to carry out the purposes of the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. 5. Disclosure may be made to the Department of Justice when:

(a)The agency or any component thereof; or

(b)any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity;

(c)any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where agency or the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or

(a)The agency or any component thereof; or

(b)any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity;

(c)any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where agency or the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or

(d)the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records. 7. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to a verified inquiry from the congressional office made at the written request of that individual. 8. Disclosure may be made for research purposes. Rarely, with the appropriate safeguards and consistent with the applicable provisions of the Privacy Act and the Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46), disclosure for research purposes may be made when the Department, independently or through its contractor(s):

(a)Has determined that the use or disclosure does not violate legal or policy limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained;

(b)has determined that a bona fide research/analysis purpose exists;

(c)has required the recipient to:

(1)Establish strict limitations concerning the receipt and use of patient-identified data;

(2)establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent the unauthorized use or disclosure of the record;

(3)remove, destroy, or return the information that identifies the individual at the earliest time at which removal or destruction can be accomplished consistent with the purpose of the research project, unless the recipient has presented adequate justification of a research or health nature for retaining such information; and

(4)make no further use or disclosure of the record except as authorized by HHS or its contractor(s) or when required by law;

(d)has determined that other applicable safeguards or protocols will be followed; and

(e)has secured a written statement attesting to the recipient's understanding of, and willingness to abide by these provisions. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Records are maintained in file folders and in computer data files. RETRIEVABILITY: Patient and donor records may be retrieved by a unique ID assigned by the system or through the use of other identifying information (e.g., names, date of birth, social security number, or address). SAFEGUARDS: 1. *Authorized Users:* Access is limited to authorized personnel responsible for administering the program, including program managers and program specialists who have responsibilities for implementing the program and the HRSA Information Systems Security Officer. The contractor(s) shall maintain current lists of authorized users. Retrieval of donor or patient records will be limited to authorized users for search, outcomes data collection and data auditing, or transplant management purposes. 2. *Assign Responsibility for Security:* Responsibility is assigned to a management official knowledgeable of the nature of the information and processes supported by the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and in the management, personnel, operational, and technical controls used to protect it. 3. *Perform Risk Assessment:* A risk assessment was conducted in conjunction with the development of the system. The system design ensures vulnerabilities, risks, and other security concerns are identified and addressed in the system design and throughout the life cycle of the project. This is consistent with the HHS Automated Information Systems Security Program Handbook. 4. *Certification and Accreditation:* The Program's electronic data systems are certified under the auspices of HRSA's Office of Information Technology Certification and Accreditation system. 5. *Physical Safeguards:* All computer equipment and files and hard copy files are stored in areas where fire and life safety codes (e.g., OSHA standards) are strictly enforced. All automated and non-automated documents are protected on a 24-hour basis. Perimeter security includes intrusion alarms, key/passcard/combination controls, and receptionist controlled area. Most hard copy files are maintained in a file room used solely for purposes of the Program with access limited by combination lock to authorized users identified above. Computer files are password protected and are accessible only by use of computers which are password protected. Servers are password protected and protected in locked rooms, with access restricted to specific authorized staff using controls specified in the certification and accreditation process. 6. *Procedural Safeguards:* A password is required to access computer files. All users of personal information in connection with the performance of their jobs protect information from public view and from unauthorized personnel entering an unsupervised area. All authorized users sign a nondisclosure statement. All passwords, keys and/or combinations are changed when a person leaves or no longer has authorized duties. Access to records is limited to those authorized personnel trained in accordance with the Privacy Act and automated data processing

(ADP)security procedures. The transmission of records is protected using secure protocols. Individuals with access to the system have User IDs and passwords and must be granted access to the system. External access to the data requires two-factor authentication. The safeguards described above were established in accordance with NIST 800-53 and OMB Circular A-130 Appendix III. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: HRSA is working with the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA)to obtain the appropriate retention value of these records. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Director, Blood Stem Cell Transplantation Program, HRSA, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-06, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Requests must be made to the System Manager. *Requests by Mail:* Requests for information and/or access to records received by mail must contain information providing the identity of the writer, and a reasonable description of the record desired, and whom it concerns. Written requests must contain the name and address of the requester, his/her date of birth and his/her signature. Requests must be notarized to verify the identity of the requester, or the requester must certify that (s)he is the individual who (s)he claims to be and that (s)he understands that to knowingly and willfully request or acquire a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense under the Privacy Act subject to a $5,000 fine (45 CFR 5b.5(b)(2)(ii)). Requests in person or by telephone, electronic mail or facsimile cannot be honored. REQUESTS IN PERSON: No requests in person at the system location will be honored. REQUESTS BY TELEPHONE: Since positive identification of the caller cannot be established, telephone requests are not honored. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Record access procedures are the same as notification procedures. Requesters should also provide a reasonable description of the contents of the record being sought. A parent or guardian who requests notification of, or access to, a minor's/incompetent person's record shall designate a family physician or other health professional (other than a family member) to whom the record, if any, will be sent. The parent or guardian must verify relationship to the minor/incompetent person as well as his/her own identity. Records will be mailed only to the requester's address that is on file, unless a different address is demonstrated by official documentation. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: To contest a record in the system, contact the official at the address specified above and reasonably identify the record, specify the information being contested, and state the corrective action sought and the reason(s) for requesting the correction, along with supporting documentation to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Sources of records include, but are not limited to, patients, donors, and/or their representatives under the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and any other sources of information or documentation submitted by any other person or entity for inclusion in a request for the purpose of facilitating and monitoring blood stem cell transplantation (e.g., transplant center healthcare professionals). SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: None. [FR Doc. E8-5056 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Pathophysiology of Lung Injury by Smoke Inhalation. *Date:* March 27, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN 18, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Brian R. Pike, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-594-3907; *pikbr@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 5, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4807 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, RAPID Autism Intervention. *Date:* April 1, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Enid Light, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6132, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20852-9608; 301-443-0322; *elight@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 5, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4808 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel NIH Loan Repayment Program Regarding Clinical Research. *Date:* April 28, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Internet Assisted Review Meeting, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Contact Person:* RoseAnne M. McGee, Associate Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat'l Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;

(919)541-0752; *mcgee1@niehs.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 5, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4809 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Intestinal Mucosal Pathobiology Program Projects. *Date:* April 15, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Mariott Suites, 6711 Democracy Blvd, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Carol J. Goter-Robinson, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, Dea, Niddk, National Institutes of Health, Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452;

(301)594-7791; *goterrobinsonc@extra.niddk.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 5, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4923 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2008-0035] Proposed Expansion of the Cove Point Facility, Cove Point, MD: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft supplemental Environmental Assessment

(EA)for the proposed issuance of a Letter of Recommendation

(LOR)on the suitability of the waterway for the expansion of the Cove Point LNG facility for Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, in Cove Point, MD. The Coast Guard requests public comments on the draft supplemental EA. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0035 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

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

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

(3)*Hand delivery:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice or the supplemental Environmental Assessment, call Lieutenant Commander Rogers Henderson, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1411 or Mr. Ken Smith, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1413. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments or other related material on the draft supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA). All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use their Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. *Submitting comments:* If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2008-0035), and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Federal Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reach the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelop. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period for the draft supplemental EA. *Viewing the comments and draft supplemental EA:* To view the comments and draft supplemental EA, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0035) in the box under “Search”, and click go. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 30590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The draft supplemental EA is also available at public libraries in Maryland (P.D. Brown Memorial Library, Accokeek Library, Potomac Library, La Plata Library, Calvert Library, Southern Branch, Prince Frederick Branch, Fairview Branch and Twin Beaches Branch, Surratts-Clinton Library, Upper Marlboro Library, and the Public Documents Reference Library) and at the Loudoun County Public Library in Ashburn, VA. *Privacy Act:* Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Proposed Action On August 8, 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC)requested Dominion Cove Point, LP, to prepare a Waterway Suitability Assessment

(WSA)for the proposed Cove Point LNG Expansion Project to be submitted to the United States Coast Guard. The purpose of the WSA was to identify credible security threats and safety hazards associated with increased LNG marine transportation in the Chesapeake Bay and identify appropriate risk management measures. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, and the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, received the WSA from Dominion Cove Point on January 17, 2006. The conclusions of the WSA were included in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7791). The Coast Guard solicited public comments on the WSA to consider when preparing preliminary recommendations to FERC for inclusion in their final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)on the Cove Point Expansion Project, which was completed April 2006, regarding the suitability of the Chesapeake Bay for the increased LNG vessel traffic. The FEIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FEIS was intended to evaluate all foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed Cove Point LNG Expansion Project including, but not limited to, possible environmental impacts from USCG issuance of the LOR on the suitability of the waterway for LNG vessel traffic. The Coast Guard later discovered that there were issues associated with issuance of the LOR that were not fully addressed in the FEIS. The applicant was notified of those issues and additional information was requested from the applicant. These issues were quickly addressed by additional information the applicant submitted to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard assessed the applicant-prepared draft EA that supplements the FERC's final EIS for the Cove Point LNG Expansion Project. Based on Cove Point's follow-up research, analysis, and proposed mitigation measures provided to the Coast Guard to address issues needed to support the LOR, the Coast Guard has preliminarily concluded that the additional LNG vessel traffic associated with the Cove Point LNG Expansion Project does not pose an undue or significant environmental hazard to the environment for the LNG vessel transit route covered by our proposed LOR. The Coast Guard will take into consideration the results of the Cove Point assessment and public comments received when making its final conclusion on whether to adopt the proffered draft applicant-prepared supplemental EA and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. To make this decision, the Coast Guard will use comments received to further assess the possible impacts on endangered species, cultural resources, essential fish habitat issues, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors. The results will also be considered as the Coast Guard prepares a Letter of Recommendation which will identify what actions and resources are necessary to make the waterway suitable for increased LNG traffic to the Cove Point LNG facility. Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment The Coast Guard has assessed the applicant-prepared draft EA that supplements the FERC's final EIS. See “Viewing the comments and draft supplementary EA” above. The draft supplementary EA identifies and examines the reasonable alternatives and assesses their potential environmental impact. We are requesting your comments on environmental concerns that you may have related to the draft supplemental EA. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Dated: March 7, 2008. J.G Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-4922 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice of Guidance. SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application process for grants and the criteria for awarding grants in the 2008 Assistance to Firefighters Grant program year, as well as an explanation for any differences with the guidelines recommended by representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership during the annual Criteria Development meeting. The program makes grants directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations for the purpose of enhancing first-responders' abilities to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that of first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. In addition, the authorizing statute requires that a minimum of 5 percent of appropriated funds be expended for fire prevention and safety grants, which are also made directly to local fire departments and to local, regional, State or national entities recognized for their expertise in the field of fire prevention and firefighter safety research and development. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cowan, Director, Assistance to Firefighters Program Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA: 5th Floor Suites AFG—TechWorld Building, SW., Washington, DC 20472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant

(AFG)Program is to provide grants directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services

(EMS)organizations to enhance their ability to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as that of first-responder personnel, with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. Appropriations For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated $560,000,000 to carry out the activities of the AFG Program. The Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)is authorized to use up to $28,000,000 for administration of the AFG program (5 percent of the appropriated amount). In addition, DHS must set aside no less than $28,000,000 of the funds (5 percent of the appropriation) for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants (FP&S). However, for fiscal year 2008, DHS will award $35,000,000 for FP&S. Under FP&S, DHS may make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention grants and firefighter safety research and development grants. The remaining $497,000,000 will be used for competitive grants to fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations for equipment, training and first responders' safety. Within the portion of funding available for these competitive grants, DHS must assure that no less than 3.5 percent of the appropriation, or $19,600,000, is awarded for EMS equipment and training. However, awards to nonaffiliated EMS organizations are limited to no more than 2 percent of the appropriation or $11,200,000. Therefore, at least the balance of the requisite awards for EMS equipment and training must go to fire departments. Background DHS awards the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the AFG program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applicants whose requests best address the program's priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel. The panel will review the narrative and evaluate the application in four different areas:

(1)The clarity of the proposed project description,

(2)the organization's financial need,

(3)the benefit to be derived from the proposed project relative to the cost, and

(4)the extent to which the grant would enhance the applicant's daily operations and/or how the grant would positively impact the applicant's ability to protect life and property. The AFG program for 2008 generally mirrors previous years' AFG programs including changes made in 2007. Those changes included the removal of the restriction regarding the number of vehicles that an applicant may request in a single application; the provision to allow organizations that protect urban or suburban communities to apply for multiple vehicles (with a limit of one vehicle per station); and an allowance for applicants to submit as many as three separate applications: a vehicle application, an application for operations and safety, and an application for a “regional project.” A “regional project,” generally, is a project undertaken by an applicant to provide services and support to a number of other regional participants, such as training for multiple mutual-aid jurisdictions. Regional applications will be required to reflect the general characteristics of the entire represented region. The population covered by the regional project will affect the amount of required local contribution to the project, i.e. the cost share required for the project. The 2008 program will again segregate the FP&S program from the AFG. DHS will have a separate application period devoted solely to FP&S tentatively scheduled to occur in the Fall of 2008. The AFG Web site *http://www.firegrantsupport.com* will provide updated information on this program. Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that a grantee may receive from the AFG program in any fiscal year (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)). These limits are based on population served. A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with 500,000 people or less may not receive grant funding in excess of $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $1,750,000 in any fiscal year. A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $2,750,000 in any fiscal year. DHS may waive these established limits to any grantee serving a jurisdiction of 1,000,000 people or less if DHS determines that extraordinary need for assistance warrants the waiver. No grantee, under any circumstance, may receive “more than the lesser of $2,750,000 or .5 percent [one-half of 1 percent] of the funds appropriated under this section for a single fiscal year.” Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(6)). Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations that serve populations of less than 20,000 must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 5 percent of the total project cost. Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving areas with a population between 20,000 and 50,000, inclusive, must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of the total project cost. Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations that serve populations of over 50,000 must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 20 percent of the total project costs. All non-Federal funds must be in cash, i.e., in-kind contributions are not eligible. The only waiver granted for this requirement will be for applicants located in Insular Areas as provided for in 48 U.S.C. 1469a. The law imposes additional requirements on ensuring a distribution of grant funds among career, volunteer, and combination (volunteer and career personnel) fire departments, and among urban, suburban and rural communities. More specifically with respect to department types, DHS must ensure that all-volunteer or combination fire departments receive a portion of the total grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the United States population that those departments protect (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(11)). There is no corresponding minimum for career departments. Therefore, subject to the other statutory limitations on DHS ability to award funds, DHS will ensure that, for the 2008 program year, no less than 33 percent of the funding available for grants will be awarded to combination departments, and no less than 22 percent will be awarded to all-volunteer departments. If, and only if, other statutory limitations inhibit DHS ability to ensure this distribution of funding, DHS will ensure that the aggregate combined total percent of funding provided to both combination and volunteer departments is no less than 55 percent. DHS generally makes funding decisions using rank order resulting from the panel evaluation. However, DHS may deviate from rank order and make funding decisions based on the type of department (career, combination, or volunteer) and/or the size and character of the community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural) to the extent it is required to satisfy statutory provisions. Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal year 2008 through the competitive grant program, DHS will set aside $35,000,000 of the funds available under the AFG program to make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention and injury prevention projects, and for research and development grants that address firefighter safety. In accordance with the statutory requirement to fund fire prevention activities, support to Fire Prevention and Safety Grant activities concentrates on organizations that focus on the prevention of injuries to children from fire. In addition to this priority, DHS places an emphasis on funding innovative projects that focus on protecting children under 14, seniors over 65, and firefighters. Because the victims of burns experience both short- and long-term physical and psychological effects, DHS places a priority on programs that focus on reducing the immediate and long-range effects of fire and burn injuries. DHS will issue an announcement regarding pertinent details of the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant portion of this program prior to the application period. Interested parties should monitor the grant program's Web site at: *http://www.firegrantsupport.com.* Application Process Prior to the start of the application period, DHS will conduct applicant workshops across the country to inform potential applicants about the AFG program for 2008. In addition, DHS will provide applicants an online web-based tutorial and other information to use in preparing a quality application. Applicants are advised to access the application electronically at *https://portal.fema.net,* or through the AFG Web site at: *http://www.firegrantsupport.com* . In completing the application, applicants will provide relevant information on the applicant's characteristics, call volume, and existing capacities. Applicants will answer questions regarding their assistance request that reflects the funding priorities (iterated below). In addition, each applicant will complete a narrative addressing statutory competitive factors: financial need, benefits/costs, and improvement to the organization's daily operations. During the application period, applicants will be encouraged to contact DHS via a toll free number or online help desk with any questions. The electronic application process will permit the applicant to enter data and save the application for further use, and will not permit the submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative, the application uses a “point-and-click” selection process, or requires the entry of information (e.g., name & address, call volume numbers, etc.). The application period for the AFG grants will be announced in the full Program Guidance when posted on the AFG website. During the approaching application season, the program office expects to receive between 20,000 and 25,000 applications. When available, application statistics on the type of department, type of community, and other factors reflected in the submitted requests will be posted on the AFG Web site: *http://www.firegrantsupport.com.* Application Review Process DHS evaluates all applications in the preliminary screening process to determine which applications best address the program's announced funding priorities. This preliminary screening evaluates and scores the applicants' answers to the activity specific questions. Applications containing multiple activities will be given prorated scores based on the amount of funding requested for each activity. The best applications as determined in the preliminary step are deemed to be in the “competitive range.” Once the competitive range is established DHS will review the list of applicants that are not included in the competitive range to determine if any of those applicants are responsible for protecting DHS-specified critical infrastructure or key resources. If it is determined that an applicant has responsibility for protecting one or more critical infrastructure or key resources but is not included in the competitive range, DHS will determine whether it is appropriate to place that application before the peer review panel due to the importance of its mission to protect these critical resources. This action will not affect any other application or otherwise undermine the process used to determine the competitive range. Peer review panelists will not be aware of any applicant's protection of critical infrastructure/key resources and all applications will be peer reviewed against the criteria described in this document. All applications in the competitive range are subject to a second level review by a technical evaluation panel made up of individuals from the fire service including, but not limited to, firefighters, fire marshals, and fire training instructors. The panelists will assess the application's merits with respect to the clarity and detail provided about the project, the applicant's financial need, the project's purported benefit to be derived from the cost, and the effectiveness of the project to enhance the health and safety of the public and fire service personnel. Using the evaluation criteria included here, the panelists will independently score each application before them and then discuss the merits and shortcomings of the application in an effort to reconcile any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score is not required. The panelists will assign a score to each of the elements detailed above. DHS will then consider the highest scoring applications resulting from this second level of review for awards. Applications that involve interoperable communications projects will undergo a separate review by the State Administrative Agency to assure that the communications project is consistent with the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP). If the State determines that the project is inconsistent with the State SCIP, the project will not be funded. After the completion of the reviews, DHS will select a sufficient number of awardees from this application period to obligate all of the available grant funding. DHS will announce the awards over several months and will notify non-successful applicants as soon as feasible. DHS will not make awards in any specified order, i.e., not by State, program, nor any other characteristic. Criteria Development Process Each year, DHS conducts a criteria development meeting to develop the program's priorities for the coming year. DHS brings together a panel of fire service professionals representing the leadership of the nine major fire service organizations: • Congressional Fire Service Institute (CFSI), • International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI), • International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), • International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), • International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI), • National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), • National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), and • North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD). The criteria development panel is charged with making recommendations to the grants program office regarding the creation and/or modification of program priorities as well as development of criteria and definitions as necessary. The governing statute requires that DHS publish each year in the **Federal Register** the guidelines that describe the application process and the criteria for grant awards. DHS must also include an explanation of any differences between the published guidelines and the recommendations made by the criteria development panel. The guidelines and the statement regarding the differences between the guidelines and the criteria development panel recommendations must be published in the **Federal Register** prior to awarding any grants under the program. 15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(14). When considering the criteria development panel's recommendations, DHS looks to the broader Administration priorities established in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD 8), 39 *Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs* . 1822 (Dec. 17, 2003). DHS is mindful of some differences between the AFG statutory mandates and HSPD-8 priorities, such as the statutory requirement that DHS make AFG grants directly to fire departments and non-affiliated EMS organizations, as contrasted with the HSPD-8 preference for funding through the States. However, the AFG is consistent with the National Preparedness Guidelines called for by HSPD-8 by prioritizing investments based upon the assessment of an applicant's need and capabilities to effectively prepare for and respond to all hazards, including terrorism threats, and a consideration of the characteristics of the community served (e.g. presence of critical infrastructure, population served, call volume) to the extent permitted by law. To the extent practical, AFG has attempted to harmonize the directions from the President and the Secretary with the requirements and limitations of the authorization and the structure of the fire service. Federal funding of assets devoted to basic firefighting should complement all aspects of responding to the more complex chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear/explosive (CBRNE) threat. The Fiscal year 2008 criteria development panel meeting occurred June 6-7, 2007. For the 2008 program year, DHS implemented all recommendations presented by the criteria development panel. However, DHS implemented additional program changes that were not considered during the criteria development panel's deliberations. Those changes are as follows: • In determining which applications will be reviewed by the peer panelists, DHS will review the list of applicants that are not included in the competitive range to determine if any those applicants are responsible for protecting critical infrastructure or key resources on this classified list. If it is determined that an applicant has responsibility for protecting one or more critical infrastructure or key resources but is not included in the competitive range, DHS will determine whether it is appropriate to place that application before the peer review panel due to the importance of its mission to protect these critical resources. This action will not affect any other application or otherwise undermine the process used to determine the competitive range. Peer review panelists will not be aware of any applicant's protection of critical infrastructure/key resources and all applications will be peer reviewed against the criteria • For regional communications requests, DHS will require that any regional communications projects comply with the applicant's State-approved Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. • Under the wellness and fitness activities, DHS will not allow grantees to request funds for consultants such as nutritionists and fitness trainers. Also, costs of incentives to bolster participation in a wellness and fitness programs will not be eligible. • Under the equipment acquisition activity, DHS will not allow funding for all-terrain vehicles, rescue boats, snowmobiles, and other small specialty vehicles. Review Considerations Fire Department Priorities Specific rating criteria for each of the eligible programs and activities are discussed below. The funding priorities described in this Notice have been recommended by a panel of representatives from the Nation's fire service leadership and have been accepted by DHS for the purposes of implementing the AFG. These rating criteria provide an understanding of the grant program's priorities and the expected cost-effectiveness of any proposed project(s). The activities listed below are in no particular order of priority. Within each activity, DHS will consider the number of people served by the applicant with higher populations afforded more consideration than lower populations. DHS will further explain program priorities in program guidance to be published separately.

(1)Operations and Firefighter Safety Program

(i)*Training Activities* . In implementing the fire service's recommendations, DHS has determined that the most benefit will be derived from instructor-led, hands-on training that leads to a nationally-sanctioned or State certification. Training requests that include Web-based home study or distance learning or the purchase of training materials, equipment, or props are a lower priority. Therefore, applications focused on national or State certification training, including train-the-trainer initiatives, will receive a higher competitive rating. Training that

(1)involves instructors,

(2)requires the students to demonstrate their grasp of knowledge of the training material via testing, and

(3)is integral to a certification will receive a high competitive rating. Instructor-led training that does not lead to a certification, and any self-taught courses, are of lower benefit, and therefore will not receive a high priority. DHS will give higher priority, within the limitations imposed by statute, to training proposals which improve coordination capabilities across disciplines (Fire, EMS, and Police), and jurisdictions (local, State, and Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response ( *i.e.* bomb threat or IED response), tactical emergency communications procedures, or similar types of inter-disciplinary, inter-jurisdictional training will receive the highest competitive rating. Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural firefighting characteristics, DHS has accepted the recommendations of the criteria development panel for different priorities in the training activities of departments that service these different types of communities. CBRNE awareness training has a high benefit, however, and will receive the highest consideration regardless of the type of community served and regardless of the absence of any national standard. For fire departments serving rural communities, DHS has determined that funding basic, operational-level firefighting, operational-level rescue, driver training, and first-responder EMS, EMT-B, and EMT-I training ( *i.e.* , training in basic firefighting, EMS, and rescue duties) has greater benefit than funding officer training, safety officer training, or incident-command training. In rural communities, after basic training, there is a greater cost-benefit ratio for officer training than for other specialized types of training such as mass casualty, HAZMAT, advance rescue and EMT-P, or inspector training. Conversely, for departments that are serving urban or suburban communities, DHS has determined that, due to the number of firefighters and the relatively-high percentage of the population protected, any training requests will receive a high priority rating regardless of the level of training requested. As such, when considering applications for training from departments serving urban and suburban communities, DHS will give higher priority to training proposals which improve coordination capabilities across first-responder disciplines (fire, EMS, and law enforcement), and jurisdictions (local, State, and Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response ( *e.g.* , weapons of mass destruction

(WMD)awareness and incident operations, chemical or biological operations, or bomb threats), tactical emergency communications procedures, or similar types of inter-disciplinary, inter-jurisdictional training will receive the highest competitive rating.

(ii)*Wellness and Fitness Activities* . In implementing the criteria panel's recommendations, DHS has determined that fire departments must offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an immunization program to have an effective wellness/fitness program. Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category must currently offer or plan to offer with grant funds all three benefits to receive funding for any other initiatives in this activity. After entry-level physicals, annual physicals, and immunizations, DHS will give priority to formal fitness and injury prevention programs. DHS will give lower priority to stress management, injury/illness rehabilitation, and employee assistance. DHS has determined the greatest relative benefit will be realized by supporting new wellness and fitness programs. Therefore, applicants for new wellness/fitness programs will receive higher competitive ratings when compared with applicants whose wellness/fitness programs lack one or more of the three top priority items cited above, and applicants that already employ the requisite three activities of a wellness/fitness program. Finally, because participation is critical to achieving any benefits from a wellness or fitness program, applications that mandate participation or provide incentives for participation will receive higher competitive ratings.

(iii)*Equipment Acquisition* . As stated in the AFG statute, DHS administers this grant program to protect the health and safety of firefighters and the public from fire and fire-related hazards. As such, equipment that has a direct effect on the health and safety of either firefighters or the public will receive a higher competitive rating than equipment that has no such effect. Equipment that promotes interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions (especially for communications equipment interoperable with a regional shared system) will receive additional consideration in the cost-benefit assessment if the application makes it into the competitive range. The criteria development panel concluded that this grant program will achieve the greatest benefits if the grant program provides funds to purchase firefighting equipment (including rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE preparedness) that the applicant has not owned prior to the grant, or to replace used or obsolete equipment. According to the panel, a department takes on a “new mission” when it expands its services into areas not previously offered, such as a fire department seeking funding to provide emergency medical services for the first time. A “new risk” presents itself when a department must address risks that have materialized in the department's area of responsibility, *e.g.* the construction of a plant that uses significant levels of certain chemicals could constitute a “new risk.” An organization taking on “new risks” should be afforded higher consideration than departments taking on a “new mission.” New missions receive a lower priority due to the potential that an applicant will not be able to financially support and sustain the new mission beyond the period of the grant. However, applicants can mitigate the impact of “new missions” on the competitiveness of their application by providing evidence that the department will be able to support and sustain the new mission beyond the period of the grant. Departments responding to high call volumes will be afforded a higher competitive rating than departments responding to lower call volumes. In other words, those departments that are required to respond more frequently will receive a higher competitive rating then those that respond less frequently. The purchase of equipment that brings the department into statutory or regulatory compliance will provide the highest benefit and therefore will receive the highest consideration. The purchase of equipment that brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards will also receive a high competitive rating, but not as high as for the purchase of equipment that brings a department into statutory compliance. The purchase of equipment that does not affect statutory compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard will receive a lower competitive rating.

(iv)*Personal Protective Equipment Acquisition* . To achieve the Program's goals and maximize the benefit to the firefighting community, DHS believes that it must fund those applicants needing to provide personal protective equipment

(PPE)to a high percentage of their personnel. Accordingly, DHS will assign a higher competitive rating in this category for fire departments where a larger number of active firefighting staff is without compliant PPE. DHS will assign a high competitive rating to departments that will purchase the equipment for the first time as opposed to departments replacing obsolete or substandard equipment ( *e.g.* , equipment that does not meet current NFPA and OSHA standards). For those departments that are replacing obsolete or substandard equipment, DHS will factor the age and condition of the equipment to be replaced into the score with a higher priority given to replacing old, damaged, torn, and/or contaminated equipment. DHS will only consider funding applications for personal alert safety system

(PASS)devices that meet current national safety standards, *i.e.* , integrated and/or automatic or automatic-on PASS. Finally, DHS takes into account the number of fire response calls that a department makes in a year with the higher priority going to departments with higher call volumes, while applications from departments with low call volumes are afforded lower competitive ratings.

(v)*Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities* . DHS believes that more benefit is derived from modifying fire stations than by modifying fire-training facilities or other fire-related facilities. The frequency of use has a bearing on the benefits derived from grant funds. As such, DHS will afford facilities occupied 24-hours-per-day/seven-days-a-week the highest consideration when contrasted with facilities used on a part-time or irregular basis. Facilities open for broad usage and have a high occupancy capacity receive a higher competitive rating than facilities that have limited use and/or low occupancy capacity. The frequency and duration of a facility's occupancy have a direct relationship to the benefits realized from funding in this activity.

(2)*Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Program* . Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural firefighting conventions, DHS has developed different priorities in the vehicle program for departments that service different types of communities. The following chart delineates the priorities in this program area for each type of community. Due to the competitive nature of this program and the imposed limits of funding available for this program, it is unlikely that DHS will fund many vehicles not listed as a Priority One during the 2008 program year. Firefighting Vehicle Program Priorities Urban communities Suburban communities Rural communities Priority One Pumper Pumper Pumper Aerial Aerial Brush/Attack Quint (Aerial < 76′) Quint (Aerial < 76′) Tanker/Tender Quint (Aerial > 76′) Quint (Aerial > 76′) Quint (Aerial < 76′) Rescue Priority Two Command Command HAZMAT HAZMAT HAZMAT Rescue Light/Air Rescue Light/Air Rehab Tanker/Tender Aerial Brush/Attack Quint (Aerial > 76′) Priority Three Foam Truck Foam Truck Foam Truck ARFFV ARFFV ARFFV Brush/Attack Rehab Rehab Tanker/Tender Light/Air Command Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance Fire Boat Fire Boat Fire Boat DHS will evaluate the marginal value derived from an additional vehicle of any given type on the basis of call volume. As a result, departments with fewer vehicles of a given type than other departments who service comparable call volumes are more likely to score competitively than departments with more vehicles of that type and comparable call volume unless the need for an additional vehicle of such type is made apparent in the application. As in 2007, applicants in the 2008 program year may submit requests for more than one vehicle. Applicants must supply sufficient justification for each vehicle contained in the request. For those applications with multiple vehicles, the panelists will be instructed to evaluate the marginal benefit to be derived from funding the additional vehicle(s) given the potential use and the population protected. DHS anticipates that the panels will only recommend an award for a multiple-vehicles application when the cost-benefit justification is adequately compelling. DHS believes that a greater benefit will be derived from funding an additional vehicle(s) to departments that own fewer or no vehicles of the type requested. As such, DHS assigns a higher competitive rating in the apparatus category to fire departments that own fewer firefighting vehicles relative to other departments serving similar types of communities (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). DHS assesses all vehicles with similar functions when assessing the number of vehicles a department possesses within a particular type. For example, the “pumper” category includes: Pumpers, engines, pumper/tankers (apparatus that carries a minimum of 300 gallons of water and has a pump with a capacity to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per minute), rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 feet in length), and urban interface vehicles (Type I). Apparatus that has water capacity in excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with pumping capacity of less than 750 gallons per minute are considered to be a tanker/tender. DHS assigns a higher competitive rating to departments possessing an aged fleet of firefighting vehicles. DHS will also assign a higher competitive rating to departments that respond to a high volume of incidents. DHS will give lower priority to funding departments seeking apparatus with the goal to expand into new mission areas unless the applicant demonstrates that they will be able to support and sustain the new mission or service area beyond the grant program. DHS will assign no competitive advantage to the purchase of standard model commercial vehicles relative to custom vehicles, or the purchase of used vehicles relative to new vehicles in the preliminary evaluation of applications. DHS has noted that, depending on the type and size of department, the peer review panelists often prefer low-cost vehicles when evaluating the cost-benefit section of the project narratives. DHS also reserves the right to consider current vehicle costs within the fire service vehicle manufacturing industry when determining the level of funding that will be offered to the potential grantee, particularly if those current costs indicate that the applicant's proposed purchase costs are excessive. DHS will allow departments serving urban or suburban communities to apply for more than one vehicle. DHS, however, will only allow departments serving rural communities to apply for one vehicle. DHS will limit applications from suburban or urban departments to one vehicle per station as well as per statutory funding limits. DHS will not limit 2008 applications because of a vehicle award from previous AFG program years.

(3)Administrative Costs. Panelists will assess the reasonability of the administrative costs requested in any application and determine if the request is reasonable and in the best interest of the program. Nonaffiliated EMS Organization Priorities DHS may make grants for the purpose of enhancing the provision of emergency medical services by nonaffiliated EMS organizations. The statute limits funding for these organizations to no more than 2 percent of the appropriated amount. DHS has determined that it is more cost-effective to enhance or expand an existing emergency medical service organization by providing training and/or equipment than to create a new service. Communities that do not currently offer emergency medical services but are turning to this grant program to initiate such a service received the lowest competitive rating. DHS does not believe creating a nonaffiliated EMS program is a substantial and sufficient benefit under the program. Specific rating criteria and priorities for each of the grant categories are provided below following the descriptions of this year's eligible programs. The rating criteria, in conjunction with the program description, provide an understanding of the evaluation standards. In each activity, the amount of the population served by the applicant will be taken into consideration with higher populations afforded more consideration than low populations served. DHS will further explain program priorities in the Program Guidance upon publication thereof.

(1)EMS Operations and Safety Program Five different activities may be funded under this program area: EMS training, EMS equipment, EMS personal protective equipment, wellness and fitness, and modifications to facilities. Requests for equipment and training to prepare for response to incidents involving CBRNE were available under the applicable equipment and training activities.

(i)*Training Activities.* DHS believes that upgrading a service that currently meets a basic life support capacity to a higher level of life support creates the most benefit. Therefore, DHS will give a higher competitive rating to nonaffiliated EMS organizations that seek to upgrade from first responder to EMT-B level or EMT-I level of service. Because training is a prerequisite to the effective use of EMS equipment, organizations with requests that focused more on training activities received a higher competitive rating than organizations whose requests focused more on equipment. The second priority is to elevate emergency responders' capabilities from EMT-B or EMT-I to a higher level of service.

(ii)*EMS Equipment Acquisition.* As noted above, training received a higher competitive rating than equipment. Applications seeking assistance to purchase equipment to support the EMT-B level or EMT-I level of service received a higher priority than requests seeking assistance to purchase equipment to support advance level EMS services. Items that are eligible but a lower priority include tents, shelters, generators, lights, and heating and cooling units. Firefighting equipment is not eligible under this activity. As discussed previously, organizations taking on “new risks” will be afforded much higher consideration than an organization taking on a “new mission.”

(iii)*EMS Personal Protective Equipment.* DHS gives the same priorities for EMS PPE as it did for fire department PPE discussed above. Acquisition of PASS devices or any firefighting PPE is not eligible, however, for funding for EMS organizations.

(iv)*Wellness and Fitness Activities.* DHS believes that to have an effective wellness/fitness program, nonaffiliated EMS organizations must offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an immunization program similar to the programs for fire departments discussed previously. Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category must currently offer or plan to offer with grant funds *all three benefits* (periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an immunization program) to receive funding for any other initiatives in this activity. The priorities for EMS wellness/fitness programs are the same as for fire departments as discussed above.

(v)*Modification to EMS Stations and Facilities.* DHS believes that the competitive rankings and priorities applied to modification of fire stations and facilities, discussed above, apply equally to EMS stations and facilities.

(2)EMS Vehicle Acquisition Program DHS gives the highest funding priority to acquisition of ambulances and transport vehicles due to the inherent benefits to the community and EMS service provider. Due to the costs associated with obtaining and outfitting non-transport rescue vehicles relative to the benefits derived from such vehicles, DHS will give non-transport rescue vehicles a lower competitive rating than transport vehicles. DHS anticipates that the EMS vehicle awards will be very competitive due to very limited available funding. Accordingly, DHS will likely only fund vehicles that are listed as a “Priority One” in the 2008 program year. The following chart delineates the priorities in this program area for EMS vehicle program. The priorities are the same regardless of the type of community served. EMS Vehicle Priorities Priority one Priority two Priority three • Ambulance or transport unit to support EMT-B needs and functions • First responder non-transport vehicles • Special operations vehicles • Command vehicles. • Hovercraft. • Other special access vehicles. Along with the priorities illustrated above, DHS has accepted the fire service recommendation that emerged from the criteria development process that funding applicants that own few or no vehicles of the type sought will be more beneficial than funding applicants that own numerous vehicles of that same type. DHS assesses the number of vehicles an applicant owns by including all vehicles of the same type. For example, transport vehicles will be considered the same as ambulances. DHS will give a higher competitive rating to applicants that have an aged fleet of emergency vehicles, and to applicants with old, high-mileage vehicles. DHS will give a higher competitive rating to applicants that respond to a significant number of incidents relative to applicants responding less often. Finally, DHS will afford applicants with transport vehicles with high mileage more consideration than applicants with vehicles that driven extensively.

(3)Administrative Costs. Panelists assess the reasonableness of the administrative costs requested in each application and determined whether the request will be reasonable and in the best interest of the program. Dated: March 10, 2008. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5039 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-64-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA 680-08-5101-ER B266] [CACA 49138] Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment, California AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation. SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), together with the County of San Bernardino, California (County), intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to assess the impacts of the Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project (Calnev Project). The Calnev Project runs adjacent to a portion of the existing Calnev system, from the North Colton terminal in the City of Colton, California to the Las Vegas Terminal in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Calnev Project is proposed by Calnev Pipe Line, LLC (Applicant). The Applicant has requested a new right-of-way

(ROW)for pipeline reconstruction and new pipeline construction covering 233 miles. The EIS/EIR will analyze the site-specific and cumulative impacts to the environment from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the new pipeline. Actions under consideration by the BLM are the grant of the ROW and amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area

(CDCA)Plan. Actions under consideration by the County are amendment to a franchise agreement and a Conditional Use Permit. The BLM will be the lead agency for NEPA compliance and the County will be the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA compliance. DATES: A public scoping period of 60 days commences with the publishing of this notice. In order to be assured inclusion in the Draft EIS/EIR, written comments must be received prior to the close of the scoping period on May 12, 2008 at the address identified below. The public is also invited to make comments or hear more about the project at the following public scoping meetings: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Rialto Middle School, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., presentation at 6:30 p.m. 324 N. Palm Ave., Rialto, CA Wednesday, April 2, 2008 Victor Elementary School District, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., presentation at 6:30 p.m. (Nisqualli Room), 15115 Nisqualli Road, Victorville, CA Thursday, April 3, 2008 Parkdale Community Center, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., presentation at 6:30 p.m. 3200 Ferndale St., Las Vegas During the public scoping period the BLM and County are soliciting public comment on issues, concerns and opportunities that should be considered in the analysis of the proposed action as well as the planning criteria to be used during consideration of the plan amendment. Comments on issues, potential impacts, or suggestions for additional alternatives may also be submitted in writing to the address listed below. Additional opportunities for public participation and formal comment will occur when the Draft EIS/EIR is issued. ADDRESSES: Comments and other correspondence should be sent to the BLM Barstow Field Office, attention Edythe Seehafer, Environmental Coordinator, Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311

(760)252-6021, by fax at

(760)252-6099 or by e-mail at *eseehafer@ca.blm.gov* . Documents pertinent to this proposal, including comments of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Barstow Field Office during regular business hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Before including your address, telephone 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 may 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. All submissions from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Edythe Seehafer at the contact numbers and addresses above or Carrie Hyke, AICP, Principal Planner, San Bernardino County, Advance Planning Division, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., First Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182, Tel. 909-387-4147. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Calnev Pipe Line, LLC has applied for a ROW on public lands to expand and reconstruct 233 miles of pipeline in California and Nevada. The pipeline transports jet fuel from the North Colton terminal in Colton, California to Bracken Junction in Las Vegas, Nevada. Projected increases in commercial air traffic in and out of McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas will require significant increases in jet fuel supplies over the next 20 years. An expanded and modernized pipeline will serve that need. The project would include construction, operation and maintenance of a new 16-inch diameter pipeline from Colton to Las Vegas; new pumps, an electrical substation and other ancillary facilities to increase pumping at Colton; a new pump station, electrical substation and ancillary facilities at Baker; as well as new or modified connections to existing laterals. Pipeline construction will take place over 12 months and is anticipated to begin in late 2009 or early 2010. As proposed, the Project would require a right-of-way

(ROW)on lands managed by the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service

(USFS)and the Department of Defense (DoD), a franchise agreement and Conditional Use Permit from the County, and appropriate permits from state, federal and local jurisdictions. Therefore, approval of the Project will require compliance with NEPA and CEQA, as well as ROW rules promulgated under the Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM will be the NEPA lead agency and the County will serve as the CEQA lead agency. The BLM and County have agreed to work together on this Project and a Joint EIS/EIR will be prepared. Since approval of the project as currently proposed would require amendment of the BLM's land-use plan, the California Desert Conservation Area

(CDCA)Plan. The plan amendment process will be conducted concurrent with, and integrated with, the NEPA process, as part of the EIS/EIR. The analytical process for consideration of a plan amendment is the same as the analytical process for consideration of a project under NEPA, although a few additional considerations are required. See BLM Handbook, H 1601-1, App. F, p. 14 *et seq.* for an outline of an EIS-level Plan Amendment. Additional coordination activities with the Governor (Consistency Review), cooperating agencies, and the public, particularly with respect to timeframes for feedback of draft and final documents, are integrated into a NEPA process that also includes a plan amendment. Also, proposed planning decisions are identified and distinguished from appealable

(NEPA)decisions. Proposed planning decisions are protested to the BLM Director and appealable decisions are taken to the Interior Board of Land Appeals for adjudication. As this is a joint EIS/EIR process, cooperating agency status for the County is already integrated into the process. BLM will consider approval of the proposed Project in a manner that avoids undue or unnecessary impacts to the public lands consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the CDCA Plan of 1980, as amended. Planning Criteria Planning criteria have been developed to ensure that the plan amendment is tailored to the issues identified and ensure that unnecessary data collection and analysis would be avoided. These criteria may change in response to public comment and coordination with State and local governments or other Federal agencies. The criteria developed for the Calnev Project EIS/EIR include the following: 1. Comply with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. 2. Minimize deviations from the existing utility corridor to the extent feasible. 3. Select an alignment in consideration of its effects on other critical linear public utilities and transportation corridors. 4. Analyze a corridor modification that reestablishes a complete corridor along I-15 adequate to accommodate the current Calnev project and anticipated future projects and that avoids crossing lands within the Mojave National Preserve. BLM must take into consideration state law when granting the ROW. The EIS/EIR will describe and analyze the proposed project as proposed and will include:

(1)BLM measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on the environment;

(2)Additional mitigation measures;

(3)The “No Action” alternative; and

(4)Alternative pipeline routes, segments or other distribution methods. Through public scoping BLM expects to identify various issues, potential impacts and mitigation measures. BLM has identified a potential list of issues that will need to be addressed in this analysis including but not limited to: Air quality; social and economic, traffic; ground and surface water quantity and quality; plant and animal species including special status species; cultural resources; visual resources; and public health and safety. If approved, this pipeline project on public lands would be authorized in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act at Title 30, Chapter 3A, Subchapter I, Subsection 185. Dated: March 5, 2008. Mickey Quillman, Acting Field Manager, Barstow Field Office. [FR Doc. E8-5004 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-926-08-1420-BJ-TRST] Montana: Filing of Plat of Survey AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana,

(30)days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone

(406)896-5124 or

(406)896-5009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was executed at the request of the Fort Peck Agency, through the Rocky Mountain Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and was necessary to determine Trust and Tribal land. *The lands we surveyed are:* Principal Meridian Montana T. 26 N., R. 44 E. The plat, in 2 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the adjusted original meanders of the former left bank of the Missouri River, downstream, through section 12, a portion of the subdivision of section 12, and survey of a portion of the meanders of the present left bank of the Missouri River, downstream, through section 12, the informative traverse of the present left bank of the Missouri River, downstream, through section 12, and certain division of accretion lines, Township 26 North, Range 44 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted February 1, 2008. We will place copies of the plat, in 2 sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in 2 sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in 2 sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals. Dated: March 7, 2008. James D. Claflin, Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Resources. [FR Doc. E8-5007 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NV-050-5853-ES; N-78796, N-80170, N-80171, N-80172, N-80173, and N-81374; 8-08807; TAS: 14X5232] Notice of Realty Action: Lease/Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes in Clark County, NV AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act request for lease and subsequent conveyance of approximately 230.26 acres of public land in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. Clark County proposes to use the land as six public parks. DATES: Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed lease/conveyance of the lands until April 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the BLM Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Warner,

(702)515-5084. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following described public land in Clark County, Nevada has been examined and found suitable for lease and subsequent conveyance for recreational or public purposes under the provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 *et seq.* ). These six parcels of land are in the Las Vegas Valley and are legally described as: Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada N-78796 (76.49 Acres) T. 21 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 24, within S 1/2 SE 1/4 . *General Location:* Central part of the Las Vegas Valley northwest of the intersection of Tropicana Avenue and Decatur Boulevard. N-80170 (15 Acres) T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 34, E 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , SE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 . *General Location:* Southwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley northeast of the intersection of Erie Avenue and Tenaya Way. N-80171 (20 Acres) T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 27, N 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 . *General Location:* Southwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley southwest of the intersection of Le Baron Avenue and Rainbow Boulevard. N-80172 (15 Acres) T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 21, S 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , N 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 . *General Location:* Southwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley southwest of the intersection of Serene Avenue and Cimarron Road. N-80173 (20 Acres) T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 29, S 1/2 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , N 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 , N 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 . *General Location:* Southwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley northwest of the intersection of Durango Drive and Mountains Edge Parkway. N-81374 (83.77 Acres) T. 23 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 06, Lots 3 and 4; Sec. 31, S 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , S 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , S 1/2 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 . *General Location:* Southern part of the Las Vegas Valley southeast of the intersection of Decatur Boulevard and Starr Hills Avenue. The areas described contain 230.26 acres, more or less. Clark County has filed R&PP applications to develop the above described land as six public parks. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plan are in the case files, which are located in the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Las Vegas Field Office. Clark County is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is therefore a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act. The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The plans of development have been reviewed and it is determined the proposed action conforms with land use plan decision, LD-1, established in accordance with section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1712). The lease/conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States: 1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945). 2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The lease/conveyance will be subject to:

(1)Valid existing rights;

(2)N-78796:

(a)A right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-02557, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(b)A right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline granted to the Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-24159, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, 041 Stat. 0437, 30 U.S.C. 185 Sec. 28;

(c)A right-of-way for a detention basin and public roadway granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-55083, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761.

(3)N-80170:

(a)A right-of-way for a sewer system granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77199, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(b)A right-of-way for a water distribution system granted to the Las Vegas Valley Water District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77507, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(c)A right-of-way for a telephone line granted to the Central Telephone Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77554, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(d)A right-of-way for a fiber optic facility granted to Cox Communications, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77555, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(e)A right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77845, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761; and

(f)A right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline granted to the Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77953, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, 041 Stat. 0437, 30 U.S.C. 185 Sec. 28.

(4)N-80171:

(a)A right-of-way for a sewer system granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-75689, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(b)A right-of-way for a sewer system granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77199, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(c)A right-of-way for a water distribution system granted to the Las Vegas Valley Water District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77507, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(d)A right-of-way for a telephone line granted to the Central Telephone Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77554, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(e)A right-of-way for a fiber optic facility granted to Cox Communications, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77555, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(f)A right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77676, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(g)A right-of-way for a fiber optic communication line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77677, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(h)A right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77845, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(i)A right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline granted to Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77953, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, 041 Stat. 0437, 30 U.S.C. 185 Sec. 28;

(j)A right-of-way for a sewer line granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-80660, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761; and

(k)A right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to the Valley Electric Association, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way Nev-059100, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761.

(5)N-80172:

(f)A right-of-way for an underground water pipeline granted to the Las Vegas Valley Water District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77998, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(g)A right-of-way for a sewer main granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-77999, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(h)A right-of-way for a fiber optic facility granted to Cox Communications, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-79655, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(i)A right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline granted to the Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-79659, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, 041 Stat. 0437, 30 U.S.C. 185 Sec. 28;

(j)A right-of-way for a telephone line granted to the Central Telephone Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-79829, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761;

(k)A right-of-way for a sewer line granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-79832, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761; and

(l)A right-of-way for an electrical power line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-80069, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761.

(6)N-80173: a right-of-way for an electrical transmission line granted to the Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way N-58888, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976, 090 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761.

(7)N-81374: no encumbering rights-of-way. Upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease and subsequent conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws. Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease/convey under the R&PP Act, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for R&PP use. 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. Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail to the Field Manager, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, will be considered properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone comments will not be considered properly filed. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior and will become effective on May 12, 2008. The lands will not be available for lease/conveyance until after the decision becomes effective. (Authority: 43 CFR 2741.5) Dated: March 6, 2008. Kimber Liebhauser, Assistant Field Manager, Division of Lands. [FR Doc. E8-5018 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 60-Day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection of Information; Opportunity for Public Comment AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service

(NPS)invites public comments on a proposed new collection of information (1024-xxxx). DATES: Public comments will be accepted on the proposed Information Collection Request

(ICR)on or before May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send Comments To: Dr. Susan A. Crate, co-PI, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 5F2, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; or via phone at 703/993-1517; or via fax at 703/993-1066; or via e-mail at *pogogmu@gmu.edu.* Also, you may send comments to Leonard Stowe, NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1849 C St., NW. (2605), Washington, DC 20240; or via e-mail at *leonard stow@nps.gov* . All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. To Request a Draft of Proposed Collection of Information, Contact Dr. Susan A. Crate, co-PI, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 5F2, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; or via phone at 703/993-1517; or via fax at 703/993-1066; or via e-mail at *pogogmu@gmu.edu* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James Gramann, NPS Social Science Program, 1201 “Eye” St., Washington, DC 20005; or via phone 202/513-7189; or via e-mail *James_Gramann@partner.nps.gov* . You are entitled to a copy of the entire ICR package free of charge once the package is submitted to OMB for review. You can access this ICR at *www.reginfo.gov/public/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Potomac Gorge Survey. *Bureau Form Number:* None. *OMB Number:* To be requested. *Expiration Date:* To be requested. *Type of Request:* New Collection. *Description of Need:* The Potomac Gorge is a IS-mile stretch along the Potomac River, crossing jurisdictions in the states of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Public parkland in the Gorge includes the NPS's Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park and George Washington Memorial Parkway. The Nature Conservancy and Potomac Conservancy own and protect areas in the Gorge. In addition, other public and private lands are included in the 10,000-acre area. The Gorge is one of the country's most biologically diverse areas, home to more than 1,400 plant species. The NPS has documented at least 30 distinct natural vegetation communities, several of which are globally rare and imperiled. The Potomac Gorge Site Conservation Plan (SCP), developed by the NPS and The Nature Conservancy, identifies conservation targets, analyzes threats to these targets, and presents strategies for mitigating environmental problems currently observed in the Potomac Gorge. Identified threats include both internal impacts inherent to a heavily visited area and external drivers originating from densely populated adjacent landscapes. The SCP considered seven conservation targets: Riparian Communities, Groundwater Invertebrates, Terrace Communities, Anadromous Fish, Upland Forest, Tributary Stream Systems, and Wetlands. Of these conservation targets, only tributary stream systems hold a “Very High” threat status. Therefore, promoting Best Management Practices among neighbors of the Potomac Gorge to improve water quality in tributary streams is one of the priority actions in the SCP. To better understand and mitigate the tributary stream threats, the Potomac Gorge Survey will gather information that will improve the understanding of NPS personnel as to the behaviors of local land owners that affect water quality in tributary streams and the socio-demographic characteristics that are associated with particular behaviors. The survey will be administered to a stratified random sample of residents in the Potomac Gorge watershed. The Potomac Gorge Survey includes questions relating to residents' choice of land use practices and behaviors that affect water resources in the Gorge, and residents' demographic profiles, mobility, information, attitudes, and beliefs. Survey data will be analyzed using statistical analysis to investigate the responsiveness of residents' environmental attitudes and behaviors to changes in demographic, cultural, and informational drivers of behavior. This pilot project will identify priorities for future work within the Potomac Gorge as well as provide a generalized application in social science issues confronting the National Parks as a whole. Landowner participation to respond is voluntary. *Automated data collection:* This information will be collected primarily via telephone surveys with an option for those contacted to complete the survey on the internet, if preferred. No automated data collection will take place. *Description of respondents:* Respondents will be among a random sample of watershed residents stratified by zip code. *Estimated average number of respondents:* 400 respondents. *Estimated average number of responses:* 400 responses. *Estimated average burden hours per response:* 1 minute for non-respondents and 20 minutes for respondents. *Frequency of Response:* 1 time per respondent. *Estimated annual reporting burden:* 3,433 hours. *Comments are invited on:*

(1)The practical utility of the information being gathered;

(2)the accuracy of the burden hour estimate;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 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. Dated: March 5, 2008. Leonard E. Stowe, NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4880 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Olympic National Park; Clallam, Gray's Harbor, Jefferson and Mason Counties, WA; Notice of Availability SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service

(NPS)has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed General Management Plan (Final GMP/EIS), Olympic National Park, Washington. The purpose of the GMP is to provide management direction for resource protection and visitor use at Olympic National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. A GMP is needed to confirm the purpose and significance of the park, to clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park, to provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions as to how to best protect park resources and provide for a diverse range of visitor experiences, to ensure a foundation for decision making in consultation with interested stakeholders, and to serve as the basis for more detailed management documents. In addition to a “baseline” no-action alternative ( *Alternative A* ) which would maintain current management, the Final GMP/EIS describes and analyzes three “action” alternatives. *Alternative B* emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection and natural processes would take priority over visitor access in certain areas of the park. *Alternative C* emphasizes increased recreational and visitor opportunities. *Alternative D* is the “management preferred” alternative; it is a combination of the other alternatives, emphasizing both protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences. The foreseeable environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed; as documented in the Final EIS, *Alternative D* is deemed to be the “environmentally preferred” course of action. *Description of Alternatives:* The Final GMP/EIS includes three action alternatives and a no-action alternative. The no-action alternative ( *Alternative A* ) assumes that existing programs, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels, and the current management practices would continue. There would be no zoning designated within the park, and issues would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis without a long range plan or vision. The park would continue to be managed in accordance with existing plans and policies. *Alternative B* emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection; natural processes would have priority over visitor access in certain areas of the park. In general, the park would be managed as a large ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to support visitation. Some roads and facilities would be moved or closed to protect natural processes, and visitor access and services in sensitive areas would be reduced. Boundary adjustments for the purposes of resource protection would be considered adjacent to the park in the Ozette, Lake Crescent, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault areas. When compared with the other alternatives, this alternative would have less front country acreage designated as development, and more acreage designated as low-use and day-use zones. This alternative includes a river zone and an intertidal reserve zone. *Alternative C* emphasizes increased recreational and visitor opportunities. The natural and cultural resources are protected through management actions and resource education programs. However, maintaining access to existing facilities would be a priority, and access would be retained to all existing front country areas or increased by improving park roads to extend season of use. New or expanded interpretation and educational facilities would be constructed. This alternative includes a boundary adjustment in the Ozette area. When compared with the other alternatives, this alternative would have increased acreages zoned as development and day use and decreased acreages of low-use zone areas. This alternative would include an intertidal reserve zone; there would be no river zone. *Alternative D* is the park's “preferred” alternative. It was developed by integrating key components of the other alternatives, emphasizing both the protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences. All management activities minimize adverse effects on park resources to the extent possible. Access would be maintained to existing front country areas, but roads might be modified or relocated for resource protection, river restoration, and/or to maintain vehicular access. Visitor education and interpretative facilities would be improved or developed to improve visitor opportunities and to protect park resources. Three boundary adjustments are proposed, which include seeking land exchanges and partnering with Washington Department of Natural Resources, developing protective strategies in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service for its lands within the adjusted boundaries, and acquiring private land by willing seller only. This alternative includes slightly more development zone acreage in the front country when compared with *Alternative B* , and slightly less than *Alternative C* . This alternative has more day-use zone acreage than *Alternative B* , and more low-use zone acreage than *Alternative C* . A river zone is not included, but the alternative does include an intertidal reserve zone. *Changes Incorporated in the Final EIS:* The park made minor changes and clarified aspects of the preferred alternative as a result of public comment; however, there were no substantive modifications. Editorial changes and additional explanatory text on topics of interest were incorporated. Other changes made to the Final GMP/EIS as a result of public comments included clarifying the purpose, need, and legislative procedures for boundary adjustments and the potential cost for property acquisition and land easements. Several public comments related to the management of cultural resources in wilderness. The wilderness and cultural resources sections have been updated based on changes in NPS Management Policies 2006. The public also expressed concerns related to existing access rights to private property and the effects the alternatives would have on the socioeconomic resources in the region. Information on private property access rights has been included. The socioeconomic information in the affected environment and environmental consequences section has been updated based on the best available information and data provided by the public during the Draft EIS comment period. There were questions from the public related to management and wilderness zoning. Management zones have been rewritten to clarify front country zone descriptions and stock use. Wilderness zoning definitions remain within the plan but the exact on-the-ground designation has been removed from the plan and will be delineated through a subsequent wilderness management plan process (which will include ample opportunity for public involvement and review). Area Indian tribes provided comments and additional information for the Final EIS. Laws and policies governing use by Native Americans of park resources have been added to “Laws, Regulations, Servicewide Mandates and Policies” and desired conditions and strategies under “Parkwide Policies and Servicewide Mandates” have been updated or clarified for several topics. In addition, visitation information has been updated with the most up-to-date statistics. Responses to comments are provided in the Final GMP/EIS. In addition to these minor changes and clarifications, several public comments resulted in minor modifications to the final preferred alternative ( *Alternative D* ). Instituting an overnight permit system for parking at Swan Bay was suggested so that lake users, including private property owners, could park overnight at that location. Keeping Rayonier Landing open for day use only was also proposed. Both of these ideas were included in the final preferred alternative. Some agencies, tribes, and communities requested increased partnering to improve visitor education and opportunities and collaborative cultural and natural resources management, and this is incorporated. There were also suggestions to integrate components of *Alternatives A, B* , and *C* into the final preferred alternative. Many commenters felt that *Alternative A* should be selected as no change was necessary to meet park management objectives. However, continuing the current management would not fulfill the plan objectives and expressed purpose and need. The park received numerous comments to expand the proposed boundary adjustment for the final preferred alternative to more closely match that included in *Alternative B* . This was considered but not incorporated in the final preferred alternative because the park determined that other options could be used to promote resource protection (such as working with partners and employing cooperative management strategies outside the park boundaries). The park also received multiple requests to integrate wild and scenic river studies for the 12 eligible rivers into the plan, and to institute a river zone as included in *Alternative B* . During development of the proposed GMP, the park reviewed the existing eligibility studies and determined that formal suitability studies related to wild and scenic rivers designation would be conducted in a separate planning process after the GMP is completed due to the high number of rivers involved and the detail needed for these studies. The park also included protective measures for rivers and floodplains in *Alternative D* ; therefore a formal river zone designation is not needed to meet park desired conditions. The park also received recommendations to include improvements to park roads and facilities similar to those explored under *Alternative C* , including paving existing gravel roads, expanding existing facilities and parking lots, and increasing visitor services. These suggestions were rejected in the final preferred alternative because they are not needed to meet park purpose, needs, and objectives. Many suggestions provided were too detailed to be included in the final proposed plan (e.g. interpretive exhibits, wilderness management practices) and are recorded for consideration in future implementation plans. Text in the final preferred alternative has been clarified to emphasize that any property acquisition would be by exchange, through easements, or by willing seller only; updated information has been provided to clarify the need for boundary expansions. Boundary adjustments would not occur until property is acquired through the willing seller process and accomplished pursuant to the legislative process. The preferred alternative has been modified slightly based on public concerns—the potential area of exchange for mineral rights has been changed from lands solely in the Ozette watershed to lands within the State of Washington. The NPS would work with the State of Washington to identify priority areas for exchange. *Public Engagement:* The park's Notice of Intent initiating the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis / GMP planning process was published in the **Federal Register** on June 4, 2001. Public engagement and information measures have included public meetings, presentations and meetings, newsletter and postcard mailings, local and regional press releases, and Web site postings. The official public scoping process began in June 2001 when a scoping newsletter was distributed to approximately 800 people on the park's mailing list. During September and October 2001, public scoping meetings were held in several locations around the Olympic Peninsula and in the region. More than 500 comments were received during the scoping process. The majority of comments fell into the following categories: resource protection, wilderness management, visitor use and experience, access to park areas, and partnerships. Due consideration of these comments aided in defining the issues to be considered in developing the draft plan. In January 2002, a newsletter was distributed to summarize the planning issues and concerns brought forward during scoping, and to announce five workshops to be held in late January to seek public participation in developing alternatives. This was followed by the releases of a preliminary alternatives newsletter (distributed in May 2003) and a park update newsletter (distributed November 2004) to the project mailing list, which had reached approximately 1,200 individuals, agencies, area tribes, and organizations. In March 2006 an R.S.V.P. card with a postage paid response was sent to those on the mailing list to announce the upcoming release of the draft plan and to determine who on the mailing list wanted a copy of the plan. Approximately 340 cards were returned with requests for a copy of the plan or for notification of its release. The EPA's notice of filing of the draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on June 16, 2006, and the document was available for extended public review for 105 days through September 30, 2006, during which time the NPS distributed approximately 900 copies. The park's Notice of Availability was published in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2006. The document was available at park offices, visitor centers and at area libraries, and it was posted on the Internet. Printed and CD-ROM copies were sent upon request, and also distributed to agencies, government representatives, area tribes, organizations, and interested individuals. Detailed information announcing the opportunity for public review and the locations, times and dates for public workshops was published in several area newspapers, including *The Peninsula Daily News, Forks Forum,* *The Daily World, The Seattle Times,* Port Townsend and Jefferson County *Leader* , and the *Kitsap Sun* . Public workshops were conducted in Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Sekiu-Clallam Bay, Amanda Park, Shelton, Silverdale, and Seattle. Over 250 people attended the workshops. The NPS received approximately 500 comments on the Draft EIS by mail, fax, hand delivery, oral transcript, and via the Internet. In addition, approximately 637 additional individuals responded by using one of seven different form letters and approximately 827 individuals signed one of three petitions. The following topics received the most comment: access to park facilities, boundary adjustments, management zoning, Olympic Hot Springs restoration, Ozette Lake, partnerships, rivers and floodplains, socioeconomic resources, tribal treaty rights and trust resources, protection of ethnographic resources, employment opportunities, government-to-government consultation, partnerships, and how to improve relationships with the park, visitor use, stock use opportunities, wilderness management, and cultural resources management. Some commenters cited concerns related to accessibility, air quality, air tours and overflights, park budget and budget priorities, climate change, costs of implementing the preferred alternative, education and outreach, facilities management, fisheries resources, geologic processes, habitat, night sky, soundscape management, topics dismissed (e.g. environmental justice, unique farmlands), vegetation, water resources, wild and scenic river studies, and wildlife management (native, extirpated, and non-native). Throughout the planning process, the NPS has consulted with various tribal, federal, state, and local government agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Western Washington Office and the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries Office and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary), Federal Highways Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Transportation, and local, city, and county officials and agencies. Consultations and informational meetings were also held with area tribal governments. Tribal consultation meetings were held with all eight tribes in 2001, and follow-up meetings were held in 2004 and 2005 to provide an update on the status of the plan. During the public review period, in 2006, meetings were offered to all eight tribes, and six tribes requested meetings. Six tribes provided a wide range of comments on the draft plan. Several tribes brought forward issues that need to be addressed outside the scope of the plan, such as jurisdiction, trust resources, treaty rights, gathering, and land issues. Tribes were also concerned about how boundary adjustments would affect their tribal treaty rights. The park integrated many tribal comments and suggested revisions into the final plan. At the request of the tribes, a meeting was held July 20, 2007 to review the tribal comments and the park responses and changes to the final plan. Seven of the eight tribes attended the meeting, plus three tribes requested individual meetings after the group session. While not all issues were addressed in the final plan, many issues were resolved and/or clarified. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final GMP/EIS is now available, and interested persons and organizations wishing to obtain the Final GMP/EIS may retrieve the document online at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olym.* The document is also available at these locations: Office of the Superintendent, Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles, Washington, 98362 (telephone requests taken at 360-565-3004); the Olympic National Park Visitor Center at Port Angeles; Olympic National Park-National Forest Information Station in Forks; and the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The document will also be available for inspection at the following area libraries: Daniel J. Evans Library, Evergreen State College; Kitsap Regional Library, Bremerton branch; North Olympic Library System at Clallam Bay, Forks, Port Angeles, and Sequim; Peninsula College Library; Port Townsend Public Library and Quilcene branch; Seattle Public Library; Tacoma Public Library; Timberland Regional Library at Aberdeen, Amanda Park, Hoodsport, and Hoquiam; University of Washington Library; William G. Reed Public Library; and at the Wilson Library, Western Washington University. *Decision Process:* The NPS will execute a Record of Decision

(ROD)no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of its notice of filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in the **Federal Register** . As a delegated EIS the official responsible for final approval of the General Management Plan is the Regional Director; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the new plan would be the Superintendent, Olympic National Park. Dated: March 5, 2008. Patricia L. Neubacher, Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. [FR Doc. E8-5045 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-KY-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-597] In the Matter of Certain Bassinet Products; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation on the Basis of a Consent Order Stipulation and Consent Order; Issuance of Consent Order AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 25) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in the above-captioned investigation terminating the investigation on the basis of a consent order stipulation and consent order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Frahm, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-3107. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on

(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on March 14, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Arm's Reach Concepts, Inc., of Malibu, California (“Arm's Reach”). 72 **Federal Register** 11902 (Mar. 14, 2007). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bassinet products by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-2, 5, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,677 and claims 1-2, 10, 15-16, 24, 29-31, and 48-49 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 39,136. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requested that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. The Commission named Simplicity, Inc., of Reading, Pennsylvania (“Simplicity”), as the sole respondent. On January 29, 2008, Arm's Reach and Simplicity filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c) to terminate the investigation as to Simplicity on the basis of a consent order stipulation and consent order. The Commission investigative attorney supported the motion. On February 15, 2008, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 25) granting the parties' motion, terminating the investigation as to Simplicity, and terminating the investigation in its entirety on the basis of a consent order stipulation and consent order. No petitions for review of the ID were filed, and the Commission has determined not to review the ID. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rules 210.21, 210.42, 19 CFR 210.21, 210.42. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-4955 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-625] In the Matter of Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 5) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. Copies of the ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 28, 2007, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Applica Incorporated and Applica Consumer Products, Inc., both of Miramar, Florida; and Waters Research Company of West Dundee, Illinois, alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain self-cleaning litter boxes and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE36,847. 72 **Federal Register** 73884 (Dec. 28, 2007). The complainants named Lucky Litter, L.L.C. of Arlington, Texas and OurPet's Company of Fairport Harbor, Ohio, as respondents. On January 22, 2008, complainants Applica Consumer Products and Waters Research Company moved for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to reflect a corporate merger between Applica Incorporated amd Applica Consumer Products, Inc. On February 11, 2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 5 granting the motion. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-4973 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1140-1142 (Preliminary)] Uncovered Innerspring Units From China, South Africa, and Vietnam Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China, South Africa, and Vietnam of uncovered innerspring units provided for in statistical reporting number 9404.29.9010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). Commencement of Final Phase Investigations Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the **Federal Register** as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in the investigations under section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Background On December 31, 2007, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Leggett & Platt Inc., Carthage, MO, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason of LTFV imports of uncovered innerspring units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam. Accordingly, effective December 31, 2007, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1140-1142 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1229). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2008, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on February 14, 2008. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3983 (February 2008), entitled *Uncovered Innerspring Units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1140-1142 (Preliminary).* By order of the Commission. Issued: February 27, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5038 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-636] In the Matter of Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 11, 2008, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Presstek, Inc. of Hudson, New Hampshire. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on February 14 and 28, 2008. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain laser imageable lithographic printing plates that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,339,737 and 5,487,338 and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,711,005. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint and supplemental letters, except for any confidential information contained therein, are available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at * http:// www.usitc.gov. * The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Spence Chubb, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2575. *Authority:* The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2007). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on March 6, 2008, ordered that—

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:

(a)Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain laser imageable lithographic printing plates that infringe one or more of claims 1, 10, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,339,737 and claims 20, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,338, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(b)Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain laser imageable lithographic printing plates by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,711,005, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of Section 337; and

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainant is— Presstek, Inc., 55 Executive Drive, Hudson, New Hampshire 03051

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: VIM Technologies, Ltd., Kibbutz Hanita, 22885, Israel Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., Kibbutz Hanita, 22885, Israel Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., 606 Schoenhaar Drive, West Bend, Wisconsin 53090 AteCe Canada, 3A Brussels Street, Suite 3A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M8Y 1H2 Ohio Graphco, Inc., 6563 Cochran Road, Solon, Ohio 44139 Recognition Systems, Inc., 30 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, New York 11050

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is T. Spence Chubb, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Theodore R. Essex is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or cease and desist orders or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-4954 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1103-0094] Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Revision of a currently approved collection—Department Annual Progress Report. The Department of Justice

(DOJ)Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The revision of a currently approved information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 73, Number 4, pages 1230-1231 on January 7, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until April 14, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Rebekah Dorr, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —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; —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; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —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 collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Department Annual Progress Report (DAPR).

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* None. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Law enforcement agencies that are recipients of COPS hiring grants and/or COPS grants that have a redeployment requirement. The Department Annual Progress Report was part of a business process reengineering effort aimed at minimizing the reporting burden on COPS hiring grantees by streamlining the collection of progress reports into one annual report.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply:* It is estimated that 3,000 respondents annually will complete the form within 1 hour.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 3,000 total annual burden hours associated with this collection. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 7, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-4993 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-AT-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Notice is hereby given that on March 3, 2008, a proposed Settlement Agreement Regarding the Southeastern Missouri

(SEMO)Mining District Sites was filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in *In re ASARCO, LLC, et al.* , No. 05-21207 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). The SEMO Mining District Sites consist of the Big River Mine Tailings Site and the Federal Mine Tailings Site in St. Francois County; the Madison County Mines Site, including the Catherine Mine Subsite and the Little Saint Francis River Subsite, in Madison County; the Glover Smelter Site, in Iron County; and the Sweetwater Mine/Mill Site and the West Fork Mine/Mill Site, in Reynolds County. The proposed settlement provides the United States allowed general unsecured claims totaling $72.5 million to resolve past and future response cost and natural resource damage claims against ASARCO, LLC, for the SEMO Mining District Sites. For thirty

(30)days after the date of this publication, the Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In either case, comments should refer to *In re Asarco, LLC,* No. 05-21207 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.), D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-08633. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. The proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, 800 North Shoreline Blvd., #500, Corpus Christi, TX 78476-2001; and at the Region 7 office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. During the comment period, the proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decree.html* . A copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice 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 no.

(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 $3.75 for the Settlement Agreement (25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to the United States Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-4972 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Supplemental Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on March 6, 2008, a proposed Supplemental Consent Decree in *United States* . v. *NCR Corp. and Allfirst Financial Center, National Association,* Civil Action No. 01-593-SLR, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In a civil action filed on August 31, 2001, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the United States sought recovery of response costs from NCR Corporation and Allfirst Financial Center, National Association (predecessor to Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company), in connection with the NCR Corporation Superfund Site in Millsboro, Delaware (“the Site”). A Consent Decree resolving some of the claims in that civil action was entered by the Court on February 28, 2002. The Consent Decree reserved the right of the United States to seek further response costs from the defendants. Pursuant to that reservation of rights, the United States now seeks to recover response costs incurred since February 14, 2001. The proposed Supplemental Consent Decree lodged on March 6, 2008, resolves the liability of the defendants for response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site between February 14, 2001 and August 1, 2006, and requires defendants to pay $124,765 in reimbursement of response costs incurred through August 1, 2006. The Supplemental Consent Decree also requires defendants to pay response costs incurred since August 1, 2006 in accordance with the terms of the Supplemental Consent Decree. The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Supplemental Consent Decree for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication. Please address comments to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, by e-mail to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or regular mail to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and refer to *United States* v. *NCR Corp. and Allfirst Financial Center, National Association,* D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-749/1. The Supplemental Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, Nemours Building, Wilmington, DE 19801 and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public comment period, the Supplemental 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 Supplemental 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 no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. When requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $6.50 for the Supplemental Consent Decree only, or $29.50 for the Supplemental Consent Decree and appendices (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the address above. Robert Brook, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources, Division. [FR Doc. E8-4975 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comment received on the proposed Final Judgment in *United States* v. *AT&T, Inc.* and Dobson Communications Corporation, No. 1:07-CY-01952-ESH, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on March 4, 2008, together with the response of the United States to the comment. Copies of the comment and the response are available for inspection at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Room 200, Washington, DC 20530, (telephone

(202)514-2481), and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Copies of any of these materials may be obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee. J. Robert Kramer, II, Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Case No. 1:07-cv-1952 (ESH); United States of America, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications Corporation, Defendants; Plaintiff United States's Response to Public Comments Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), the United States hereby responds to the public comment received regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case. After careful consideration of the comment, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comments and this Response has been published in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d). On October 30, 2007, the United States filed the Complaint in this matter alleging that the proposed merger of two mobile wireless telecommunications service providers, AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) and Dobson Communications Corporation (“Dobson”), would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. Simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the plaintiff filed a proposed Final Judgment and a Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order signed by the United States and defendants consenting to the entry of the proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the requirements of the Tunney Act. Pursuant to those requirements, the United States filed a Competitive Impact Statement (“CIS”) in this Court on October 30, 2007; published the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the **Federal Register** on November 19, 2007, see 72 FR 65,060 (2007); and published a summary of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and CIS, together with directions for the submission of written comments relating to the proposed Final Judgment, in the Washington Post for seven days beginning on November 18, 2007 and ending on November 24, 2007. The 60-day period for public comments ended on January 22, 2008, and one comment was received as described below and attached hereto. I. Background As explained more fully in the Complaint and CIS, the likely effect of this acquisition would be to lessen competition substantially for mobile wireless telecommunications services in seven

(7)geographic areas in the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas. To restore competition in these markets, the proposed Final Judgment, if entered, would require defendants to divest

(a)Dobson's mobile wireless telecommunications services businesses and related assets in three markets;

(b)AT&T minority interests in other mobile wireless telecommunications services providers in two markets, and

(c)Dobson's Cellular One Assets, which include the Cellular One service mark and related assets. 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 punish violations thereof. II. Legal Standard Governing the Court's Public Interest Determination Upon publication of the public comments and this Response, the United States will have fully complied with the Tunney Act. It will then ask the Court to determine that entry of the proposed Final Judgment would be “in the public interest,” and to enter it. 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, 1 is required to consider: 1 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 *United States* v. *SBC Commc'ns, Inc.,* 489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review).

(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). 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). 2 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.” *SEC 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). 2 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.” SEC 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 codified what the Congress that enacted the Tunney Act in 1974 intended, 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 Congo 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. 3 3 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.”). III. Summary of Public Comment and the United States's Response During the 60-day public comment period, the United States received one comment—from Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. (“Mid-Tex”), a wireless competitor to the merging firms in certain geographic areas—which is attached hereto and summarized below. Upon review, the United States believes that nothing in the comment warrants a change in the proposed Final Judgment or is sufficient to suggest that the proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest. The comment, in essence, argues that the United States should have identified, alleged, and remedied a different competitive concern than the one explained in the United States's Complaint. Copies of this Response and its attachment have been mailed to Mid-Tex. A. Factual Background: Texas RSA 9 The United States's Complaint alleges that the merger of AT&T and Dobson would tend to lessen competition substantially, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in the provision of mobile wireless telecommunications services in seven geographic areas, including Texas RSA 9—the subject of Mid-Tex's comments. The competitive landscape in Texas RSA 9 is somewhat complicated, and thus, this description is provided to assist in understanding the comments of Mid-Tex, the nature of the competitive concerns reflected in the United States's Complaint, and how the proposed Final Judgment adequately redresses the concerns. Throughout the United States, in each local geographic area the Federal Communications Commission issues two cellular licenses, an “A side” and a “B side,” in the 800 MHz spectrum band for the provision of wireless service, as well as a number of PCS licenses in the 1900 MHz spectrum band. In rural areas, the cellular licenses are more attractive to carriers than PCS licenses because the propagation characteristics of this spectrum band allow sparsely populated areas to be served more efficiently. Frequently in rural areas, holders of PCS licenses do not fully build out their networks, except in areas where the population density is higher or there are major highways. In Texas RSA 9, Dobson controls one of the two cellular licenses—the “A-side” license—throughout the entire RSA, and operates RSA-wide using that license. The situation for the “B-side” cellular license is much more complicated, as the license is split, geographically, between three different carriers. Mid-Tex, an entity in which AT&T had a minority interest, 4 controls the “B-side” license in five of the eleven counties that comprise the RSA, and a portion of a sixth. AT&T controls the “B-side” license in two counties in the RSA, and portions of three others. 5 And, a third company, Alltel Corporation, controls the “B-side” license in one county and a portion of two others. 4 AT&T withdrew from the Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. partnership on December 15, 2007, and thus, no longer has a minority interest in Mid-Tex. This withdrawal was accomplished pursuant to Sections II.H and Section IV of the proposed Final Judgment in this matter and Section IV.B of the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order signed by this Court on November 12, 2007, which requires the defendants to comply with the proposed Final Judgment pending the Judgment's entry. 5 It is these counties, where AT&T owns the cellular licenses, that constitute the Texas RSA 9B1 and 9B4 partition areas that Mid-Tex refers to in its comment. Texas RSA 9B1 includes Eastland County and a portion of Erath County, and Texas RSA 9B4 includes Somervell County and portions of Bosque County and Hill County. AT&T also controls some PCS licenses throughout the RSA. In conducting an investigation of the merger of two mobile wireless providers, the United States does a fact-specific market-by-market analysis that examines a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the number of mobile wireless providers and their competitive strengths and weaknesses, market shares of the merging companies and other providers, the depth and breadth of coverage of providers and whether providers could expand their existing coverage. 6 In investigating the proposed merger of AT&T and Dobson, the United States considered the competitive effects of the combination of the Dobson and AT&T wholly-owned wireless business in Texas RSA 9, as well as the effect of AT&T retaining a minority interest in the Mid-Tex business subsequent to acquiring the Dobson business. However, the United States concluded that only the retention of the minority interest in Mid-Tex raised competitive concerns in the RSA and alleged only that harm in its Complaint. 7 6 Competitive Impact Statement at 7-8. 7 In the Complaint, Texas RSA 9 is not alleged as an “AT&T/Dobson Overlap Market” in which the combination of the two businesses is the source of the competitive concern; instead, it is listed in the portion of the Complaint which discusses “AT&T Minority Interest Markets” and the competitive problem is described as follows: “[E]ither Dobson or the business in which AT&T has a minority interest has the largest share and the other defendant is a particularly strong and important competitor in all, or a large part, of the RSA. * * * Post-merger, the merged firm would likely have the ability and incentive to coordinate the activities of the wholly-owned Dobson wireless business and the business in which it has a minority stake, and/or undermine the ability of the latter to compete against the former. Such activity would likely result in a significant lessening of competition.” Complaint ¶¶ 21-22. Thus, the competitive problem alleged by the United States in Texas RSA 9 is the combination of Dobson and Mid-Tex (minority owned by AT&T); it is that problem—and only that problem—that the proposed decree properly seeks to remedy. With regard to the wholly-owned businesses, the United States did not have sufficient reason to allege that the combination of the Dobson and AT&T businesses would present a competitive concern. AT&T's cellular license ownership is limited to a small minority of the geographic area of the RSA—essentially a strip of two counties, and portions of three others, along the northern border of the RSA. Although it competes to a limited extent elsewhere in the RSA via its PCS licenses, 8 AT&T appears to be a strong competitor primarily only in the areas where it is the cellular licensee. However, in that small portion of the RSA, there are three other competitors offering wireless service via a network built out utilizing their PCS spectrum: Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Based on these facts, the United States did not believe it could successfully allege and prove that the combination of the Dobson and AT&T wholly-owned wireless businesses would be likely to reduce competition substantially in the RSA, and thus, it made no such allegation. 8 In the counties in this RSA where AT&T only has PCS spectrum, its network is built out to a very limited extent, covering less than 15% of the population. On the other hand, Mid-Tex controls the cellular licenses for a much larger portion of the RSA—five counties, and a portion of a sixth. Moreover, the PCS carriers appear to have much less of a competitive presence in that portion of the RSA (including very limited networks) than in the area where AT&T controls the “B side” license. It thus appears that Dobson and Mid-Tex are the two strongest competitors in five-and-a-half counties which comprise a large portion of the RSA, facing little effective competition there from the PCS providers. Therefore, any significant diminution of either company's ability to function as an independent, aggressive competitive constraint likely would tend to lessen competition substantially. As alleged in the Complaint, AT&T had important management and control interests in Mid-Tex and thus, “[p]ost-merger, the merged firm would likely have the ability and incentive to coordinate the activities of the wholly-owned Dobson wireless business and [Mid-Tex], and/or undermine the ability of the latter to compete against the former.” The United States sought to remedy the identified competitive problem by including in the proposed Final Judgment a requirement that the merged firm divest itself of the minority interest in Mid-Tex. B. Summary of Comment Mid-Tex raises two concerns regarding Texas RSA 9. First, it contends that the merged firm should be required to divest not only its minority interest in Mid-Tex, but also either the Dobson “A side” cellular license throughout the entire RSA, or AT&T's other “B side” interests in the RSA. 9 According to Mid-Tex, such a divestiture is necessary “for the same reasons” that the United States concluded that it was necessary for the merged firm to divest its interest in Mid-Tex: It argues that in certain subdivisions of Texas RSA 9, the merged firm would have “well in excess of 70 percent of subscribers.” Second, Mid-Tex argues that AT&T should not be prohibited from reacquiring a non-controlling interest in Mid-Tex during the ten-year term of the proposed Final Judgment. It contends that the proposed decree's prohibition on reacquisition is unnecessarily broad in that a reacquisition might not be harmful to competition if either

(a)it was completely passive, or

(b)competitive conditions had changed by the time of the proposed reacquisition. 9 Although Mid-Tex operates in Texas RSA 9, it appears from its Web site that Mid-Tex does not compete in the Texas RSA 9B1 or 9B4 partition areas, the subdivisions that are the primary focus of its comment. C. Response Mid-Tex does not take issue with the divestiture remedy embodied in the Final Judgment as far as it goes (except for the reacquisition provision), but instead contends that it does not go far enough: Essentially, it argues that the United States should have identified, and alleged, a different, additional competitive problem in its Complaint and remedied that problem. Mid-Tex contends that the overlap between the Dobson business, and the business controlled directly by AT&T in the “Texas 9B1 market” and “Texas 9B4 market” 10 pose a competitive problem and that, therefore, the merged firm should be required to divest either the Dobson or AT&T interests in those areas. But as described above, the United States was unable to conclude that the combination of the Dobson business and the wholly-owned AT&T business was likely to reduce competition substantially in the alleged geographic market, Texas RSA 9, due to the relatively small portion of the RSA covered by AT&T's cellular licenses and the presence of multiple other competitors in that portion. 11 Accordingly, the United States did not allege that the combination of the Dobson and wholly-owned AT&T businesses posed a competitive concern in this RSA, nor did it seek to remedy any such concern. 10 The geographic market as alleged in the United States' Complaint is represented by all of Texas RSA 9; the United States did not allege a “partitioned Texas 9B1 market” or “Texas 9B4 market” as referred to by Mid-Tex. See Mid-Tex Comment at 2-3. 11 Mid-Tex claims that, according to its estimates, in the Texas RSA 9B1 and 9B4 portions of the RSA, the combined Dobson and AT&T businesses “serve 90-95% of wireless subscribers.” It, however, provides no source for those estimates and, indeed, those estimates are not supported by the information reviewed by the United States. With regard to Mid-Tex's second concern, regarding the reacquisition clause, it is typical for antitrust consent decrees containing a divestiture remedy to bar the merged firm from reacquiring the divested assets during the ten-year term of the decree. Such a provision is typically included because, except in unusual circumstances, it would defeat the purposes of a divestiture to allow the merged firm to simply reacquire the divested assets. Mid-Tex contends that if AT&T were to reacquire a “truly passive” non-controlling interest in Mid-Tex, it would not pose a competitive concern. But this is not necessarily the case: In some circumstances, even a passive interest can have anticompetitive consequences, e.g., reducing the incentives of the merged firm to use its wholly-owned business in the market in question to compete aggressively. A bright line prohibition on reacquisition—similar to that contained in numerous prior consent decrees entered by this Court 12 —ensures easy administrability as well as the ultimate success of the proposed divestiture, and it does so in a way that causes no undue harm to consumers or other third parties. 13 12 See, e.g., *United States* v. *Amsted Industries, Inc.* , ¶ XII, No. 1:07-cv-00710

(JDB)(D.D.C. July 16, 2007) (Final Judgment), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f224900/224931.htm* ; *United States* v. *Cal Dive Int'l, Inc.* , ¶ XII, No. 1:05CY02041

(EGS)(D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2006) (Final Judgment), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213100/213177.htm* ; *United States* v. *Cingular Wireless Corp.* , ¶ XI, No. 1:04CY01850

(RBW)(D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2005) (Final Judgment), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f208000/208093.htm* . 13 Mid-Tex briefly suggests that the no reacquisition prohibition could harm Mid-Tex. But, it is difficult to see why barring one out of an almost infinite number of possible investors from purchasing an interest in a company is, in itself, likely to cause undue harm to that company. Indeed, if the only entity willing to invest in a firm were one of its most important direct competitors, that in itself might warrant at least some reason for competitive concern. Moreover, Mid-Tex contends that “if market conditions change” during the term of the proposed Final Judgment, a reacquisition by AT&T would not necessarily threaten competition. But this is the case in every antitrust consent decree: Market conditions can always change in a way that moot the need for a decree, or any specific provisions thereof. If market conditions change, the appropriate solution is a motion to modify the decree. The United States has supported a motion to modify, and the Court has modified, the reacquisition clause in appropriate circumstances. 14 The fact that market conditions might change in the future is not a reason to modify or delete otherwise important provisions from a decree before it has even been entered. 14 See, e.g., *U.S.* v. *SBC Commc'ns, Inc.* , 339 F. Supp.2d 116 (D.D.C. 2004) (modifying reacquisition clause of Final Judgment). IV. Conclusion After careful consideration of this public comment, the United States still concludes that entry of the proposed Final Judgment will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in the Complaint and is, therefore, in the public interest. Pursuant to Section 16(d) of the Tunney Act, the United States is submitting the public comment and its Response to the **Federal Register** for publication. After the comments and its Response are published in the **Federal Register** , the United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment. Respectfully submitted, Hillary B. Burchuk (DC Bar No. 366755) Lawrence M. Frankel (DC Bar No. 441532) *Attorney, Telecommunications & Media, Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division. U.S. Department of Justice, City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,

(202)514-5621, Facsimile:

(202)514-6381.* Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on March 4, 2008, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff United States' Response to Public Comments was mailed via first class mail, postage prepaid, upon counsel for Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd., addressed as follows: Michael R. Bennet, Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, 4350 East West Highway, Suite 201, Bethesda, MD 20814. Hillary B. Burchuk (DC Bar No. 366755), *Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division. U.S. Department of Justice, City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,

(202)514-5621, Facsimile:

(202)514-6381.* Before the United States Department of Justice In the Matter of *United States of America* v. *AT&T Inc.* and Dobson Communications Corporation, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No. 1:07-cv-01952; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Comments of Mid-Tex Cellular. Ltd. Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. (“Mid-Tex”), by its attorneys, and pursuant to the Notice published November 19, 2007 in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No. 222), hereby submits its comments on the proposed settlement in the above-captioned U.S. District Court proceeding. In its Competitive Impact Statement (“CIS”) filed by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“Department”) in that proceeding, the Department concluded that AT&T Inc.'s (“AT&T”) proposed acquisition of Dobson Communications Corporation (“Dobson”) will likely substantially lessen competition, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in the provision of mobile wireless telecommunications services in the Texas RSA-9 (CMA 660) market (“Texas RSA-9”), among other markets. 1 The Department filed a proposed Final Judgment which requires AT&T to divest its interest in Mid-Tex. For the reasons stated in its petition opposing the transfer of control of Dobson's wireless radio licenses to AT&T, filed with the Federal Communications Commission on August 27, 2007 (“Petition”) 2 , Mid-Tex, with one exception, supports the proposed Final Judgment as it relates to the proposed divestiture of AT&T's interest in Mid-Tex. 3 For the same reasons as well as those stated below, Mid-Tex urges the Department to require the divestiture of a portion of AT&T's remaining interests in Texas RSA-9. 4 1 *United States* v. *AT&T Inc.* and Dobson Communications Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 72 FR 65060 (Department of Justice Antitrust Division Nov. 19, 2007). 2 A copy of the Petition was submitted to the Department by letter dated August 29, 2007. 3 As discussed in Section II infra, Mid-Tex opposes a ten year restriction on AT&T reacquiring any ownership interest in Mid-Tex. 4 Mid-Tex's position herein is not intended to address and should not be construed as its concurrence that the actions taken or proposed herein resolve all anti-competitive issues resulting from AT&T's actions in Texas RSA-9. I. The Department Should Require AT&T To Divest a Portion of Its Wireless Interests Throughout Texas RSA-9 Specifically, Mid-Tex requests that the Department require AT&T to divest either:

(1)The A band license for the Texas RSA-9 market held by Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Dobson; or

(2)its ownership interests in Texas 9B1 Limited Partnership, the Cellular B Block licensee in the partitioned Texas 9B1 market, and the license for the partitioned Texas 9B4 market held by AT&T Mobility Texas, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. As discussed below, for the same reasons the Department has found divestiture of AT&T's interests in Mid-Tex to be necessary, the further divestiture of AT&T's interests in the Texas 9 RSA is also necessary. The proposed Final Judgment requires the divestiture of AT&T's minority interest in Mid-Tex. The Department found that, without such divestiture, the merged AT&T “would likely have the ability and incentive to coordinate the activities of the wholly-owned Dobson wireless business and the business in which it has a minority stake, and/or undermine the ability of the latter to compete against the former” and that “[s]uch activity would likely result in a significant lessening of competition” in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. 5 The Department reached this conclusion based on its finding that in Texas RSA-9 the businesses in which AT&T and Dobson have an interest collectively account for in excess of 70 percent of subscribers and that AT&T has significant rights under the Mid-Tex partnership agreement to control core business decisions, obtain critical confidential competitive information, and share in profits at a rate significantly greater than the equity ownership share upon a sale of the partnership. 6 5 Department of Justice Complaint in the above-captioned proceeding (“Complaint”) at par. 22; Competitive Impact Statement (“CIS”), 72 FR at 65072. The Department found that in Texas RSA-9 “the merged firm will have the incentive and ability to increase prices, diminish the quality or quantity of services provided, and refrain from or delay making investments in network improvements.” 72 FR at 65072. 6 *Id.* at pars. 21-22. In the partitioned Texas 9B1 market, the businesses in which AT&T and Dobson have an interest collectively account for well in excess of 70 percent of subscribers, 7 and, as the sole general partner in Texas RSA 9B1 Limited Partnership, AT&T has a controlling interest in that entity. 8 In the partitioned Texas 9B4 market, AT&T and Dobson collectively account for well in excess of 70 percent of subscribers. 9 7 By Mid-Tex's estimation, Dobson and the AT&T controlled Texas RSA 9B1 Limited Partnership serve 90-95% of wireless subscribers in the partitioned Texas RSA 9B1 market. 8 See FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services (FCC Form 602) filed by Texas RSA 9B1 Limited Partnership on February 26, 2007. New Cingular Wireless PCS (“NCW PCS”) holds a one percent general partnership interest in Texas RSA 9B1 Limited Partnership. *Id.* at Exhibit 1. NCW PCS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cingular Wireless II, LLC, which has two members: AT&T Mobility LLC f/k/a Cingular Wireless LLC (“AT&T Mobility) (57%) and New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (“NCWS”) (43%). *Id.* NCWS is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Mobility, which, in turn, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. SWBW B-Band Development LLC (“SWBW”), a wholly owned subsidiary of NCW PCS, holds a 43.1449% limited partnership interest in Texas RSA 9B1 Limited Partnership. *Id.* 9 As discussed above, the B Block cellular license is held by AT&T Mobility Texas, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. By Mid-Tex's estimation, Dobson and AT&T serve 90-95% of wireless subscribers in the partitioned Texas RSA 9B4 market. The Department recognizes that in Texas RSA-9, “either Dobson or the business in which AT&T has a minority interest has the largest share and the other firm is a particularly strong and important competitor in all, or a large part, of the RSA.” Due to the combined market share throughout the RSA, the Department should treat the remainder of Texas RSA-9 as it has already decided to treat Texas RSA-9B2, and require AT&T to divest a portion of its remaining interests in the market. To allow AT&T to retain wireless interests it holds outright or through a controlling general partnership interest, while requiring it to divest minority, yet controlling, limited partnership interests is inconsistent and without justifiable basis. 10 10 Conversely, if divestiture is not required in the remainder of Texas RSA-9, it should not be required in Texas RSA 9B2. The entire market should be treated consistently. II. AT&T Should Not Be Prohibited From Reacquiring a Non-Controlling Interest in Mid-Tex Although Mid-Tex supports the Department's decision to condition merger approval on AT&T's divestiture of its interest in Mid-Tex in Texas 9B2, Mid-Tex opposes the proposed condition that AT&T be barred from reacquiring any part of its interest in Mid-Tex during the proposed ten year term of the Final Judgment. The Department's rationale for the divestiture requirement in Texas 9B2 is AT&T's ability to control Mid-Tex through rights granted to it under the partnership agreement. If AT&T wishes to reinvest in Mid-Tex as a truly passive investor within the ten year effective period of the Final Judgment, it should not be prohibited from doing so. Such a prohibition will harm only Mid-Tex and not competition in Texas 9B2. Such reacquisition of divestiture assets should not be permitted, however, absent Department review of the amended limited partnership agreement, to enable the Department to ensure that AT&T has not regained rights to control core business decisions, obtain critical confidential competitive information, and share in profits at a rate significantly greater than the equity ownership share upon a sale of the partnership. 11 11 In addition, if market conditions change during the ten year effective period such that the Department is able to determine that AT&T control of Mid-Tex would no longer threaten competition, AT&T should then be permitted to acquire a controlling interest in Mid-Tex. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Mid-Tex respectfully requests that the Department require the additional divestitures discussed herein, and permit AT&T to reacquire a limited interest in Mid-Tex as discussed herein. Should the Department have any questions regarding the matters addressed herein, please communicate directly with the undersigned. Dated: January 18, 2008. Respectfully submitted, MID-TEX CELLULAR, LTD., Michael R. Bennet, *Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, 4350 East West Highway, Suite 201, Bethesda, MD 20814, 202-371-1500.* cc: Hillary Burchuk Declaration of Toney Prather I, Toney Prather, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury the following: 1. I am the Manager of, and President of the sole member of the managing general partner of, Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. 2. I have read the foregoing Comments of Mid-Tex Cellular Ltd. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein, and believe them to be true and correct. Dated: January 11, 2008. Toney Prather. [FR Doc. E8-4817 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [OMB Number 1117-0031] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review. Application for Registration Under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 and Renewal Application for Registration Under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 DEA Forms 510 & 510A. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 73, Number 004, page 1232 on January 7, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until April 14, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —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; —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; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —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:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 and Renewal Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 DEA Forms 510 & 510A.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* *Form number:* DEA Forms 510 and 510A. *Component:* Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Business or other for-profit. *Other:* None. *Abstract:* The Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act requires that manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters of List I chemicals which may be diverted in the United States for the production of illicit drugs must register with DEA. Registration provides a system to aid in the tracking of the distribution of List I chemicals.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* Respondents Burden (minutes) Total hour burden @ $10/hour = DEA-510 (paper) 60 0.5 hours 30 $300 DEA-510 (electronic) 125 0.25 hours 31.25 312.50 DEA-510A (paper) 580 0.5 hours 290 2,900 DEA-510A (electronic) 840 0.25 hours 210 2,100 Total 1605 561.25 5,612.50 *Total percentage electronic:* 60.1%.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 561.25 annual burden hours. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 7, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-4992 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Notice of a Proposed Amendment to PTE 93-31; Proposed Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption

(PTE)93-31, 58 FR 28620 (May 14, 1993), as Amended by PTE 97-34, 62 FR 39021 (July 21, 1997), PTE 2000-58, 65 FR 67765 (November 13, 2000), PTE 2002-41, 67 FR 54487 (August 22, 2002) and PTE 2007-05, 72 FR 13130 (March 20, 2007), (PTE 93-31), Involving Bank of America, N.A., the Successor of NationsBank Corporation (D-11446) AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of a Proposed Amendment to PTE 93-31. SUMMARY: This document contains a notice of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of a proposed amendment to PTE 93-31, an Underwriter Exemption. 1 The Underwriter Exemptions are individual exemptions that provide relief for the origination and operation of certain asset pool investment trusts and the acquisition, holding and disposition by employee benefit plans (Plans) of certain asset-backed pass-through certificates representing undivided interests in those investment trusts. The proposed amendment to PTE 93-31, if granted, would provide a six month period to resolve certain affiliations between LaSalle Bank, N.A., the Trustee, and Bank of America, N.A. as members of the Restricted Group, as those terms are defined in the Underwriter Exemptions (the Proposed Amendment). The Proposed Amendment, if granted, would affect the participants and beneficiaries of the Plans participating in such transactions and the fiduciaries with respect to such plans. 1 The “Underwriter Exemptions” are a group of individual exemptions that provide substantially identical relief for the operation of certain asset-backed or mortgage-backed investment pools and the acquisition and holding by Plans of certain securities representing interests in those investment pools. DATES: Written comments and requests for a hearing should be received by the Department by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a public hearing (preferably, three copies) should be sent to the Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, (Attention: Exemption Application Number D-11446). Interested persons are invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to the Department by the end of the scheduled comment period either by facsimile to

(202)219-0204 or by electronic mail to *moffitt.betty@dol.gov.* The application pertaining to the Proposed Amendment (Application) and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy M. McColough of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains a notice of pendency before the Department of a proposed exemption to amend PTE 93-31, an Underwriter Exemption. The Underwriter Exemptions are a group of individual exemptions granted by the Department that provide substantially identical relief from certain of the restrictions of sections 406 and 407 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and from the taxes imposed by sections 4975(a) and

(b)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code), by reason of certain provisions of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code for the operation of certain asset pool investment trusts and the acquisition, holding, and disposition by Plans of certain asset-backed pass-through certificates representing undivided interests in those investment trusts. All of the Underwriter Exemptions were amended by PTE 97-34, 62 FR 39021 (July 21, 1997), PTE 2000-58, 65 FR 67765 (November 13, 2000), and PTE 2007-05, 72 FR 13130 (March 20, 2007), as corrected at 72 FR 16385 (April 4, 2007). Certain of the Underwriter Exemptions were amended by PTE 2002-41, 67 FR 54487 (August 22, 2002). The Department is proposing this amendment to PTE 93-31 pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). 2 2 Section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 1 [1996]) generally transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions under section 4975(c)(2) of the Code to the Secretary of Labor. 1. The Underwriter Exemptions permit Plans to invest in pass-through securities representing undivided interests in asset-backed or mortgage-backed investment pools (Securities). The Securities generally take the form of certificates issued by a trust (Trust). The Underwriter Exemptions permit transactions involving a Trust, including the servicing, management and operation of the Trust, and the sale, exchange or transfer of Securities evidencing interests therein, in the initial issuance of the Securities or in the secondary market for such Securities (the Covered Transactions). The most recent amendment to the Underwriter Exemptions is PTE 2007-05, 72 FR 13130 (March 20, 2007), as corrected at 72 FR 16385 (April 4, 2007) (PTE 2007-05). One of the General Conditions of the Underwriter Exemptions, as amended, requires that the Trustee not be an “Affiliate” of any member of the “Restricted Group” other than an “Underwriter.” PTE 2007-05, subsection II.A.(4). The term “Restricted Group” is defined under section III.M. as:

(1)Each Underwriter;

(2)Each Insurer;

(3)The Sponsor;

(4)The Trustee;

(5)Each Servicer

(6)Any Obligor with respect to obligations or receivables included in the Issuer constituting more than 5 percent of the aggregate unamortized principal balance of the assets in the Issuer, determined on the date of the initial issuance of Securities by the Issuer;

(7)Each counterparty in an Eligible Swap Agreement; or

(8)Any Affiliate of a person described in subsections III.M.(1)-(7).” The term “Servicer” is defined to include “any Subservicer.” PTE 2007-05, section III.G. The term “Affiliate” is defined, in part, to include “(1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such other person;

(2)Any officer, director, partner, employee * * * of such other person; and

(3)Any corporation or partnership of which such other person is an officer, director or partner.” PTE 2007-05, section III.N. 2. On May 14, 1993, PTE 93-31 was granted to NationsBank Corporation, a North Carolina corporation. Prior to September 25, 1998, NationsBank

(DE)Corporation, a Delaware corporation, was organized as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NationsBank Corporation. On September 25, 1998, NationsBank Corporation merged into NationsBank

(DE)Corporation with NationsBank

(DE)Corporation being the survivor. Each share of NationsBank Corporation common stock was converted into a share of NationsBank

(DE)Corporation common stock and continued as the outstanding stock after the merger. The assets owned by NationsBank Corporation became the assets of NationsBank

(DE)Corporation. Simultaneously with this merger, NationsBank

(DE)Corporation changed its name to NationsBank Corporation. The sole purpose of this merger was to reincorporate NationsBank Corporation as a Delaware corporation. On September 30, 1998, BankAmerica Corporation, a Delaware corporation, merged into NationsBank Corporation, with NationsBank Corporation being the survivor. All outstanding shares of NationsBank Corporation common stock continued to remain outstanding after the merger, and each share of BankAmerica Corporation common stock was exchanged for 1.1316 shares of NationsBank Corporation. Simultaneously with the September 30, 1998 merger, NationsBank Corporation changed its name to BankAmerica Corporation. Thus, BankAmerica Corporation, formally known as NationsBank Corporation, became owned by the former shareholders of both NationsBank and BankAmerica Corporations, with the shareholders of NationsBank Corporation owning the majority of the outstanding shares. Based on these facts, in a letter dated November 25, 1998, the Department confirmed that PTE 93-31 continued in effect and could be used by the newly formed corporation, BankAmerica Corporation. 3. Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America or the Applicant) provides that on April 28, 1999, BankAmerica Corporation changed its name to Bank of America Corporation and filed its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation with the Delaware Secretary of State. Bank of America Corporation is the parent holding company of Bank of America, N.A. Banc of America Securities, LLC is the U.S. investment banking subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. The Proposed Amendment was requested by application dated September 25, 2007 and updated on January 16, 2008, by Bank of America (the Application). The Applicant states that on October 1, 2007, Bank of America Corporation acquired ABN Amro North America Holding Company, the holding company of LaSalle Bank Corporation (The Acquisition). LaSalle Bank, N.A. (LaSalle) is a subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation. LaSalle is the Trustee in many Covered Transactions that include Bank of America. The Acquisition caused certain transactions previously subject to PTE 93-31 or the Underwriter Exemption that is relied upon in the particular transaction to fail to satisfy the requirement under the Underwriter Exemptions that the Trustee not be an Affiliate of any member of the Restricted Group other than an Underwriter. PTE 2007-05 subsection II.A.(4). Currently, for transactions where Bank of America is the Servicer, a six-month period is provided by the Underwriter Exemptions to sever the affiliation between the Servicer and the Trustee if the affiliation occurred after the initial issuance of the Securities. PTE 2007-05, subsection II.A.(4)(b). However, there is currently no transitional relief under the Underwriter Exemptions where Bank of America (as Banc of America Securities, LLC) is a Sponsor or a Swap Counterparty and LaSalle is the Trustee. Accordingly, Bank of America seeks a temporary amendment to PTE 93-31 to provide for a six-month period for resolution of certain prohibited affiliations caused by the Acquisition of LaSalle, the Trustee, by Bank of America. In addition, the Applicant requests that the amendment provide similar relief for certain Covered Transactions where LaSalle is Trustee and Bank of America is a member of the Restricted Group, other than the Underwriter. In those transactions, the Underwriter, who is unrelated to Bank of America, relies upon an Underwriter Exemption other than PTE 93-31. Citigroup Global Market, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, and Goldman, Sachs & Co. have confirmed to the Applicant that they have been notified of the application for the Proposed Amendment and have agreed to coverage under the Proposed Amendment. In its September 25, 2007 Application, Bank of America represented that LaSalle placed a notice on its web pages for each of the Covered Transactions affected by the Acquisition. The Applicant represented that this notice would be updated upon publication of the Proposed Amendment, and if granted, the amendment. Further, the web pages noted the appointment of any co-trustee and the appointment of the replacement trustee. The Applicant states that LaSalle, in its role of Trustee, will bear the cost of appointing such co-trustee and that there will be no financial impact on any Underwriter. 4. Bank of America represents that the Covered Transactions affected by the Acquisition consist of 37 commercial or residential mortgage-backed securitizations (CMBS or RMBS) (Securitizations) as detailed at section III.KK of the Proposed Amendment (the Securitizations List). Bank of America states that all of the Securitizations were structured and are managed to meet the requirements of PTE 93-31 or another substantially similar Underwriter Exemption, in each case as amended by PTE 2007-05. LaSalle is the Trustee in each of the Securitizations. The Applicant represents that, in its role as Trustee, LaSalle is obligated under both the operative documents that securitize the loans, and under state law relating to fiduciaries, to protect the interests of security holders. Specifically, the Trustee is required to enforce the rights of security holders against other parties to the transaction, including Servicers, Swap Counterparties and loan sellers. The Applicant notes further that in practice, due to industry standards and reputation concerns by the various parties, little such protection or enforcement is necessary, and the Trustee's role, while vigilant, is relatively passive. Bank of America is a party to each of the Securitizations in the capacity or capacities detailed in the Securitizations List. The Applicant states that, in any of these capacities, Bank of America is obligated, under the operative documents of the transaction, to perform its designated duties under contractual and, in some cases, industry standards for the benefit of security holders. The Applicant represents that each of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements has been structured to comply with PTE 93-31 or a substantially identical Underwriter Exemption, and that each of the Trusts has been managed in accordance with the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Consequently, Securities issued by each Trust currently are eligible for purchase by Plans that meet the requirements of PTE 93-31 or a substantially identical Underwriter Exemption. 5. The Applicant states that none of the Trusts were formed or marketed with the knowledge that Bank of America and LaSalle would become affiliated. Bank of America further states that once it became aware of the Acquisition, it stopped using LaSalle as a Trustee on securitization transactions. The Applicant notes that the Securitization List contains only three transactions closed in 2007. The Applicant states that, in general, the Pooling and Servicing Agreements governing the applicable Securitizations permit the cures detailed in their Application by contemplating a trustee's resignation and replacement so as to comply with applicable law and providing the Trustee the ability to appoint co-trustees and other agents authorized to carry out the Trustees' duties. The Applicant notes that the agreements do not provide specific qualifications for co-trustees. While the agreements vary in the detail, after due diligence, the Applicant asserts that it is not aware of any provisions of the agreements or SEC requirements that preclude the cures detailed in the Application. 6. Bank of America represents in its Application that during the proposed six month resolution period, for each Securitization on the Securitization List, the Trustee shall appoint a co-trustee, which is not an Affiliate of Bank of America, no later than the earlier of

(a)January 2, 2008 or

(b)five business days after LaSalle, the Trustee, has become aware of a conflict between the Trustee and any member of the Restricted Group that is an Affiliate of the Trustee. The co-trustee will be solely responsible for resolving such conflict between the Trustee and any member of the Restricted Group that has become an Affiliate of the Trustee as a result of the Acquisition; provided that if the Trustee has resigned on or prior to January 2, 2008, and no event described in clause

(b)has occurred, no co-trustee shall be required since a replacement trustee would be in place by January 2, 2008. Bank of America represents that as Trustee, LaSalle will appoint a co-trustee with the knowledge and skill necessary to resolve any conflict arising between LaSalle and any Bank of America affiliated member of the Restricted Group. In the event that a co-trustee were appointed, such co-trustee would assume LaSalle's role under the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement (solely with respect to any conflict between LaSalle and a Bank of America affiliate that is a member of the Restricted Group) until a replacement trustee replaced LaSalle. On January 16, 2008, the Applicant informed the Department that LaSalle was replaced as Trustee in each Securitization on the Securitization List as of January 2, 2008. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the replacement trustee for the majority of the Securitizations on the Securitization List. U.S. Bank National Association is the replacement trustee for the remaining Securitizations on the list. LaSalle represents that there were no actual conflicts during the period of affiliation, October 1, 2007 to January 2, 2008. Thus, no co-trustee had to be appointed during that period. For purposes of this Proposed Amendment, a conflict would arise whenever

(a)Bank of America is a member of the Restricted Group and fails to perform in accordance with the timeframes contained in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement following a request for performance from LaSalle, as Trustee, or

(b)LaSalle, as Trustee, fails to perform in accordance with the timeframes contained in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement following a request for performance from Bank of America, a member of the Restricted Group. The time as of which a conflict occurs is the earlier of the day immediately following the last day on which compliance is required under the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement; or the day on which a party affirmatively responds that it will not comply with a request for performance. Additionally, for purposes of this Proposed Amendment, the term conflict includes but is not limited to, the following:

(1)Bank of America's failure, as Sponsor, to repurchase a loan for breach of representation within the time period prescribed in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement, following LaSalle's request, as Trustee, for performance;

(2)Bank of America, as Sponsor, notifies LaSalle, as Trustee, that it will not repurchase a loan for breach of representation, following LaSalle's request that Bank of America repurchase such loan within the time period prescribed in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the notification occurs prior to the expiration of the prescribed time period for the repurchase); and

(3)Bank of America, as Swap Counterparty, makes or requests a payment based on a value of LIBOR 3 that LaSalle, as Trustee, considers erroneous. 3 The London Interbank Offered Rate. 7. In Bank of America's September 25, 2007 application to the Department, the Applicant represented that it and LaSalle were currently identifying replacement trustees to replace LaSalle as Trustee in approximately 60 transactions (this number includes transactions where the conflict is not ERISA-related and the transaction is not on the Securitization List). The Applicant's intent was to complete the negotiations and paperwork for approximately 20 transactions per month, with the effective date for all changes to be January 2, 2008. This date was convenient for non-ERISA reasons primarily relating to tax and securities law reporting. The Applicant further represented that, in contrast to co-trustees, any replacement trustee will have to meet the requirements of the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement for qualification as a Trustee. A copy of a typical Pooling and Servicing Agreement requirements for a trustee was provided to the Department. In the September 25, 2007 application, Bank of America stated that it and LaSalle were in the process of making arrangements for hiring such replacement trustees, with all such appointments scheduled to be effective on January 2, 2008. The Applicant noted that if a conflict were to arise prior to January 2, 2008 with respect to any Trust, it would be likely that the party that would become the replacement trustee (and hence meets the requirements of the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement for qualification as a Trustee) would be appointed co-trustee under the terms of the Proposed Amendment. The Applicant stated, however, that there might be situations where appointment of the future replacement trustee would be impossible or impractical, in which case the parties would have to appoint a different co-trustee until the replacement trustee assumed its role. The Applicant stated that while Wells Fargo is the replacement trustee of choice, there are transactions where Wells Fargo is a member of the Restricted Group and consequently cannot be named Trustee. Bank of America noted that, in certain cases, LaSalle will continue as a securities administrator, retaining certain reporting requirements but be responsible to the replacement trustee. The replacement trustee will have legal title to the assets of the trust, will have fiduciary responsibility to the securities holders and will be responsible for supervising LaSalle in whatever role it retains. 8. Bank of America represents that, as of January 16, 2008, there was no outstanding conflict requiring resolution involving LaSalle and any Bank of America entity involved in the transactions listed in the Securitizations List. Further, Bank of America stated that it would notify the Department of Labor of any conflict that arose prior to the replacement of LaSalle as Trustee in any of these transactions. Bank of America notified the Department on January 16, 2008 that LaSalle was replaced as Trustee for each of the transactions on the Securitization List. The Applicant notes that, as a technical matter, in the most likely case (e.g. the assertion of a breach of representation or warranty by the Sponsor), the Pooling and Servicing Agreements all require that the Trustee provide the offending party 90 days to cure the issue before the Trustee may take any action to do so itself. Consequently, if an issue would have arisen after October 1, 2007; the Trustee would not have been able to take any action to cure the issue until after January 2, 2008. Since the Trustee replacements were made on January 2, 2008, LaSalle was replaced by a non-affiliated trustee before it could have taken any action. 9. The Applicant notes that Plans acquired Securities issued under the Securitizations in reliance on the exemptive relief provided by the Underwriter Exemptions. Absent additional relief, the Acquisition has caused these granted exemptions to cease to apply to several of the Securitizations. Bank of America represents that the Securities issued in transactions such as the Securitizations are attractive investments for Plans subject to Title I of ERISA or section 4975 of the Code and conversely, such plans are an important market for issuers of such Securities. Bank of America asserts that to force LaSalle to resign as Trustee in all of the Securitizations before the Acquisition was not administratively feasible because the number of available trustees is limited and there is work required in changing trustees. Similarly, to have the exemptions no longer apply to the Securitizations would force the Plans to sell their securities in the current unstable market, likely at a loss. The Applicant additionally notes that although the Acquisition has been widely covered, it is conceivable that Plan fiduciaries would not realize that the Underwriter Exemption relied upon by the Plans had ceased to apply, raising the possibility that a Plan would not sell and that non-exempt prohibited transactions would occur. 10. Bank of America states that the Plans purchased Securities in reliance on PTE 93-31 or a substantially identical exemption. At that time, the Plans had no knowledge that the Trustee would become an Affiliate of one or more members of the Restricted Group. On or after the Acquisition, except in cases covered by PTE 93-31 as amended by PTE 2000-58 (providing a six-month window for Trustee-Servicer affiliations) or PTE 2002-41 (Trustee-Underwriter affiliations), the purchased Securities would no longer be afforded coverage under the Underwriter Exemptions and the Plans would have been obligated to sell the Securities prior to October 1, 2007. The Applicant asserts that this is problematic for several reasons. First, as is customary for such transactions, the physical securities are not used in most cases. Rather, an electronic system, usually the Depository Trust Company's electronic system, is utilized and the securities are in global form. In such cases, it is difficult (and may be impossible) to ascertain the beneficial ownership of the securities, meaning that it is not known whether Plans are owners and to what extent. The Applicant asserts that identifying the affected Plans would be time consuming and expensive, and may be impossible to do with complete accuracy because of the book-entry system under which Securities were issued. As stated above, the Applicant represents that notice of this request for relief was posted on the Trustee's Web site at the time this Application was submitted, which would be updated to reflect any action of the Department with respect to the Application. The Applicant has informed the Department that, although LaSalle was replaced as Trustee on January 2, 2008, LaSalle will remain as the Securities Administrator for each of the Securitizations on the Securitization List and LaSalle will continue to update its Web site concerning the status of the Proposed Amendment. In this regard, the Applicant also requests that the publication of the Proposed Amendment in the **Federal Register** serve as the Notice to Interested Persons for purposes of this submission. Second, and more importantly, the current disruption in the mortgage-backed securities market makes sales problematic, both in terms of finding buyers and establishing proper valuation. Granting the requested relief prevents these problems. The Applicant states further that the relief is of the same duration, six months, as that already provided by the Department for Trustee-Servicer affiliations, suggesting that the Department has already determined that this period is sufficiently brief to prevent serious conflicts of interest from arising. 11. Bank of America requests that the relief, if granted, be made retroactive to the October 1, 2007 Acquisition date. If the relief is granted retroactively, Plans would be able to retain their prior Securitization investments and to purchase Securities in the secondary market relying upon the Underwriter Exemptions once exemptive relief is granted, even if the transactions originally closed or will close prior to the date the final Amendment is published in the **Federal Register** , if granted by the Department. General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following: 1. The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which require, among other things, a fiduciary to discharge his or her duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirements of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries; 2. Before an exemption can be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plans and of their participants and beneficiaries and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plans; and 3. The proposed amendment, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction. Written Comments and Hearing Requests All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending amendment to the address above, within the time frame set forth above, after the publication of this proposed amendment in the **Federal Register** . All comments will be made a part of the record. Comments received will be available for public inspection with the Application at the address set forth above. Proposed Exemption Based on the facts and representations set forth in the application, under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, August 10, 1990), the Department proposes to modify Prohibited Transaction Exemption

(PTE)PTE 93-31, 58 FR 28620 (May 5, 1993); as subsequently amended by PTE 97-34, 62 FR 39021 (July 21, 1997), PTE 2000-58, 65 FR 67765 (November 13, 2000), PTE 2002-41, 67 FR 54487 (August 22, 2002) and PTE 2007-05, 72 FR 13130 (March 20, 2007) (PTE 93-31). 1. Subsection II.A.(4) of PTE 93-31 is amended to add a new subsection

(c)that reads as follows:

(c)Effective October 1, 2007 through April 1, 2008, LaSalle Bank, N.A., the Trustee, shall not be considered to be an Affiliate of any member of the Restricted Group solely as the result of the acquisition of ABN Amro North America Holding Company, the holding company of LaSalle Bank Corporation and its subsidiary, LaSalle Bank, N.A. (LaSalle) by Bank of America Corporation and its subsidiaries (Bank of America) (the Acquisition), which occurred after the initial issuance of the Securities, provided that:

(i)The Trustee, LaSalle, ceases to be an Affiliate of any member of the Restricted Group no later than April 1, 2008;

(ii)Any member of the Restricted Group that is an Affiliate of the Trustee, LaSalle, did not breach any of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, unless such breach was immaterial and timely cured in accordance with the terms of such agreement, during the period from October 1, 2007 through the date the member of the Restricted Group ceased to be an Affiliate of the Trustee, LaSalle; and

(iii)In accordance with each Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Trustee, LaSalle, appoints a co-trustee, which is not an Affiliate of Bank of America, no later than the earlier of

(A)January 2, 2008 or

(B)five business days after LaSalle becomes aware of a conflict between the Trustee and any member of the Restricted Group that is an Affiliate of the Trustee. The co-trustee will be responsible for resolving any conflict between the Trustee and any member of the Restricted Group that has become an Affiliate of the Trustee as a result of the Acquisition; provided, that if the Trustee has resigned on or prior to January 2, 2008 and no event described in clause

(B)has occurred, no co-trustee shall be required.

(iv)For purposes of this subsection II.A.(4)(c), a conflict arises whenever

(A)Bank of America, as a member of the Restricted Group, fails to perform in accordance with the timeframes contained in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement following a request for performance from LaSalle, as Trustee, or

(B)LaSalle, as Trustee, fails to perform in accordance with the timeframes contained in the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement following a request for performance from Bank of America, a member of the Restricted Group. The time as of which a conflict occurs is the earlier of: the day immediately following the last day on which compliance is required under the relevant Pooling and Servicing Agreement; or the day on which a party affirmatively responds that it will not comply with a request for performance. For purposes of this subsection II.A.(4)(c), the term “conflict” includes but is not limited to, the following:

(3)Bank of America, as Swap Counterparty, makes or requests a payment based on a value of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) that LaSalle, as Trustee, considers erroneous. 2. The Definition of “Underwriter” at section III.C. of PTE 93-31 is temporarily replaced with a definition that includes other entities and reads: C. Effective October 1, 2007 through April 1, 2008, “Underwriter” means:

(1)Bank of America Securities, LLC, or an entity identified as an underwriter on the Securitization List at section III.KK. (i.e., Citigroup Global Market, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, and Goldman, Sachs & Co.);

(2)Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by or under common control with such entities; or

(3)Any member of an underwriting syndicate or selling group of which such firm or person described in subsections III.C.(1) or

(2)is a manager or co-manager with respect to the Securities. 3. The Definition of “Sponsor” at section III.D. of PTE 93-31 is temporarily extended to include language applicable to transactions on the Securitization List at section III.KK and reads: D. “Sponsor” means:

(1)The entity that organizes an Issuer by depositing obligations therein in exchange for Securities; or

(2)Effective October 1, 2007 through April 1, 2008, for those transactions listed on the Securitization List at section III.KK., Bank of America. 4. Section III of PTE 93-31 is temporarily amended to add a new section III.KK that reads as follows: KK. Effective October 1, 2007 through April 1, 2008, “Securitization List” means: Name and exemption Issuance type BofA role Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2001-PB1, 93-31 C U, S, SC, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2004-2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2004-4, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2004-6, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2005-2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2005-3, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2005-5, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2005-6, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2006-2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2006-5, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Comm. Mtge. 2007-1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Large Loan 2006-BIX1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Large Loan 2004-BBA4, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Banc of America Large Loan 2005-BBA6, 93-31 C U, S. Bank of America Struct. Notes 2002-X1, 93-31 C U, S, SC, SER. Bear Stearns Series 2004-BBA3, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Bear Stearns Series 2007-BBA8, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Citigroup Commercial Mtg. 2006-FL2, 89-89 (Citigroup Global) C S, SER. COMM Series 2006-FL12, 97-03E (Deutsche Bank) C S, SER. COMM Series 2007-FL14, 97-03E (Deutsche Bank) C S, SER. COMM Series 2001-J2, 93-31 C U, S, SC, SER. COMM 2006-C8, 97-03E (Deutsche Bank) C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2002-2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2003-C2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2004-C2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2005-C1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2005-C3, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GE Capital Comm Mtge. Corp. 2006-C1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. GS Mortgage Sec. 2004-GG2, 89-88 (Goldman, Sachs) C S. Merrill Lynch Series 2004-BPC1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Merrill Lynch Series 2005-MKB2, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Mortgage Cap. Funding 1996-MC2, 93-31 C U, S. Mortgage Cap. Funding 1997-MC2, 93-31 C U, S. NationsLink Funding Corp. 1999-LTL-1, 93-31 C U, S, SER. NationsLink Funding Corp. 1999-SL, 93-31 C U, S, SER. Asset Backed Funding Corp. 2002-SB1, 93-31 R U, S. C-BASS 2007-CBS, 93-31 R U, S. Legend: C = Commercial mortgage-backed securitizations. R = Residential mortgage-backed securitizations. U = Underwriter. S = Sponsor. SC = Swap Counterparty. SER = Servicer. The availability of this amendment, if granted, is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the Application are true and complete and accurately describe all material terms of the transactions. In the case of continuing transactions, if any of the material facts or representations described in the Application change, the amendment will cease to apply as of the date of such change. In the event of any such change, an application for a new amendment must be made to the Department. Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of March, 2008. Ivan L. Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E8-4980 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; 2008-03, 2008-04, and 2008-05 Grant of Individual Exemptions Involving; D-11343, Wellington Management Company, LLP (Wellington Management), PTE 2008-03; D-11389, GE Asset Management Incorporated, PTE 2008-04; and D-11421, Toeruna Widge IRA (the IRA), PTE 2008-05 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions. SUMMARY: This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). A notice was published in the **Federal Register** of the pendency before the Department of a proposal to grant such exemption. The notice set forth a summary of facts and representations contained in the application for exemption and referred interested persons to the application for a complete statement of the facts and representations. The application has been available for public inspection at the Department in Washington, DC. The notice also invited interested persons to submit comments on the requested exemption to the Department. In addition the notice stated that any interested person might submit a written request that a public hearing be held (where appropriate). The applicant has represented that it has complied with the requirements of the notification to interested persons. No requests for a hearing were received by the Department. Public comments were received by the Department as described in the granted exemption. The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor. Statutory Findings In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:

(a)The exemption is administratively feasible;

(b)The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and

(c)The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan. Wellington Management Company, LLP (Wellington Management) and Its Subsidiaries (together, Wellington) Located in Boston, MA [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2008-03; Exemption Application No. D-11343] Exemption Section I. Covered Transactions The restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and

(D)of the Act (or ERISA) and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and

(D)of the Code, 1 shall not apply

(1)retroactively, from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003, and

(2)prospectively, from the date the notice granting the final exemption is published in the **Federal Register** , to— 1 For purposes of this exemption, references to provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

(A)The acquisition, from an offshore corporation (the Offshore Corporation) of certain non-voting equity securities (Shares), which represents interests in the economic value of the Offshore Corporation, by an ERISA-covered client plan (the Client Plan), where the Offshore is a party in interest with respect to the Client Plan, due to the ownership of all of the voting equity shares (Manager Shares) of the Offshore Corporation by Wellington Global Administrator, Ltd. (Wellington Global Administrator), a subsidiary of Wellington Management, which is (or may become) a fiduciary and a service provider with respect to the Client Plan; and

(B)The redemption of the Client Plan's Shares by the Offshore Corporation either in cash or in kind. Section II. Conditions This exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following conditions, which apply both retroactively and prospectively, unless otherwise excepted:

(a)All decisions to acquire or redeem Shares have been made or are made on behalf of the Client Plan by an authorized fiduciary, which is independent of Wellington and the applicable Offshore Corporation.

(b)At the time of acquisition of Shares from an Offshore Corporation, each Client Plan either had or has assets at least equal to $100 million.

(1)In the case of a master trust that holds assets of multiple related Client Plans maintained by a single employer or a controlled group of employers, as defined in section 407(d)(7) of the Act, this requirement is satisfied if the master trust has aggregate assets at least equal to $100 million (assuming the fiduciary responsible for making the investment decision is the Client Plan sponsor or an affiliate of the Client Plan sponsor).

(2)In the case of a pooled fund (e.g., a group trust) whose assets are “plan assets” subject to the Act, this requirement is satisfied as long as either

(i)the pooled fund has at least $100 million in aggregate assets and the fiduciary making the investment decision is unrelated to Wellington and manages at least $200 million in assets (exclusive of the aggregate assets invested in the Offshore Corporations); or

(ii)at least 50 percent of the units of beneficial interest in the pooled fund are held by Client Plans, each of which has total net assets of at least $100 million.

(c)Wellington has not provided and does not provide investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)), nor is it a fiduciary with respect to any Client Plan's investment in an Offshore Fund.

(d)All acquisitions and redemptions of Shares by a Client Plan have been made or are made for fair market value, determined as follows:

(1)Equity securities have been valued or are valued at their last sale price or official closing price on the market on which such securities primarily trade using sources independent of Wellington and the issuer. If no sales occurred on such day, equity securities are valued at the last reported independent “bid” price or, if sold short, at the last reported independent “asked” price.

(2)Fixed income securities have been valued or are valued on either the basis of “firm quotes” obtained at the time of the acquisition or redemption of Shares from U.S.-registered or foreign broker-dealers, which are registered and subject to the laws of their respective jurisdiction, which quotes reflect the share volume involved in the transaction, or on the basis of prices provided by independent pricing services that determine valuations based on market transactions for comparable securities and various relationships between such securities that are generally recognized by institutional traders.

(3)Options have been valued or are valued at the mean between the current independent “bid” price and the current independent “asked” price or, where such prices are not available are valued at their fair value in accordance with Fair Value Pricing Practices by Wellington Management's pricing committee, which utilizes a set of defined rules and an independent review process.

(4)If current market quotations are not readily available for any investments, such investments have been valued or will be valued at their fair value by Wellington Management's pricing committee in accordance with Fair Value Pricing Practices.

(e)A Client Plan's Shares have been redeemed or may be redeemed, in whole or in part, without the payment of any redemption fee or other penalty, on a pre-specified, periodic (not longer than semi-annual) basis, upon no more than 45 days' advance notice, except for a one-year lock-up period imposed on new investors.

(f)Redemptions of Shares in an Offshore Corporation by a Client Plan have been made or are made in cash unless:

(1)A Client Plan consents to such in kind redemption; or

(2)Wellington requires that such redemption be made in kind on a pro rata basis to protect the best interests of the Offshore Fund and the remaining investors, including other Client Plan investors.

(g)In advance of the initial investment by a Client Plan in an Offshore Corporation's Shares, the independent fiduciary of a Client Plan has received or receives—

(1)A copy of the proposed exemption and the final exemption, following the publication of these documents in the **Federal Register** . (This disclosure provision applies to the prospective exemptive relief described herein.)

(2)An offering memorandum describing the relevant Offshore Fund(s), as well as the relevant investment objectives, fees and expenses and redemption and valuation procedures; and

(3)All reasonably available relevant information as such independent fiduciary may request.

(h)On an ongoing basis, Wellington has provided or provides a Client Plan with the following information:

(1)Unaudited performance reports at the end of each month;

(2)Audited annual financial statements and access to a protected internet site; and

(3)Client services group assistance for any investor inquiries.

(i)No commission or sales charge has been assessed or is assessed against the Client Plan in connection with its acquisition of an Offshore Corporation's Shares.

(j)Not more than 10% of the assets of the Client Plan has been invested or is invested, in the aggregate, in Shares of all Offshore Corporations (determined at the time of any acquisition of such Shares) and not more than 5% of the assets of the Client Plan has been indirectly invested or is invested, in the aggregate, in any one offshore fund (the Offshore Fund), a separate collective investment vehicle underlying an Offshore Corporation, (also determined at the time of any acquisition of an interest in such Offshore Fund by such Client Plan).

(k)For prospective transactions only (and following the publication of the proposed exemption and the final exemption in the **Federal Register** ), each Offshore Corporation, each Offshore Fund, Wellington Management Investment, Inc., Wellington Global Holdings, Ltd., Wellington Hedge Management, LLC, and Wellington Global Administrator—

(1)Has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

(2)Has agreed to appoint an agent for service of process in the United States, which may be an affiliate (the Process Agent);

(3)Has consented to service of process on the Process Agent; and

(4)Has agreed that any enforcement by a Plan of its rights pursuant to this exemption will, at the option of the Plan, occur exclusively in the United States courts.

(l)For prospective transactions only (and following the publication of the proposed exemption and the final exemption in the **Federal Register** ), Wellington maintains in the United States for a period of six years from the date of the covered transactions, such records as are necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph

(m)of this section II to determine whether the conditions of this exemption were met, except that:

(1)If the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph

(m)to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have been met are lost or destroyed, due to circumstances beyond the control of Wellington, then no prohibited transaction will be considered to have occurred solely on the basis of the unavailability of those records; and

(2)No party in interest other than Wellington shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and

(b)of the Code if the records have not been maintained or are not available for examination as required by paragraph

(m)below. (m)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (m)(2) of this section II and notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and

(b)of section 504 of the Act, the records referred to above in paragraph

(l)of this section II are unconditionally available for examination during normal business hours at their customary location to the following persons or an authorized representative thereof:

(i)Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service (the Service);

(ii)Any fiduciary of a Client Plan; or

(iii)Any participant or beneficiary of a Client Plan or any duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary.

(2)None of the persons described above in paragraphs

(ii)and

(iii)of this paragraph (m)(1)(ii) and

(iii)of this Section II shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of Wellington, or any commercial or financial information, which is privileged or confidential. Section III. Definitions

(a)The term “Wellington” means Wellington Management Company, LLP and its subsidiaries.

(b)An “affiliate” of Wellington means—

(1)Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;

(2)Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; and

(3)Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.

(c)The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

(d)The term “Offshore Corporation” means —

(1)WMIB;

(2)Any future expansion of WMIB that includes an additional class of securities or an additional Offshore Fund that is organized as a Bermuda limited partnership, which corresponds to the new WMIB class that is established by Wellington pursuant to the WMIB structure, and conforms to the same conditions, rules and regulations described in this exemption;

(3)Archipelago; or

(4)Any future “fund of funds” investment vehicle that is formed by Wellington under Bermuda law and is set up in substantially the same manner as Archipelago, with the same management structure, and conforms to the same conditions, rules and regulations described in this exemption.

(e)The term “Offshore Fund” means a collective investment vehicle that is organized as a Bermuda limited partnership, which corresponds to each class of WMIB securities. Each Offshore Fund invests primarily in publicly-traded securities, although up to 15% of each Offshore Fund may be invested in securities that are not readily marketable.

(f)The term “U.S. broker-dealer” means a broker-dealer registered in the United States under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) or exempted from registration under section 15(a)(1) of the 1934 Act as a dealer in exempted government securities (as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the 1934 Act).

(g)The term “foreign broker-dealer” means a broker that has, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year, equity capital that is the equivalent of not less than $200 million and is registered and regulated, under the relevant securities laws of a governmental entity of a country other than the United States, where such regulation and oversight by the governmental entities is comparable to regulatory regimes within the United States.

(h)“Manager Shares” refer to the equity securities of an Offshore Corporation that have voting rights and control the election of the Board of Directors of an Offshore Corporation. Manager Shares do not participate in the economic performance of the Offshore Corporation and are owned 100% by Wellington Global Administrator.

(i)“Shares” refer to the equity securities of an Offshore Corporation that do not have voting rights. Such shares represent substantially all of the economic value of the Offshore Corporation and are or will be directly linked either

(i)by class to a corresponding Offshore Fund (in the case of WMIB) or

(ii)to a mix of various WMIB classes (in the case of Archipelago or any other fund of funds entity). *Effective Date:* This exemption is effective retroactively for the transactions involving Wellington and two Client Plans that occurred from January 1, 2001 until December 31, 2003. For prospective transactions involving Wellington and a Client Plan, this exemption is effective on the date the notice granting the final exemption is published in the **Federal Register** . Written Comments The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments with respect to the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice) within 45 days of the date of the publication of such notice in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2007. All comments were due by December 10, 2007. During the comment period, the Department received one written comment concerning the Notice. The comment was submitted by Wellington and it requests certain modifications or clarifications to the Notice in the areas discussed below. 1. *Footnote 3.* In Footnote 3 of the Summary of Representations, the last sentence states that, “[b]ecause these two WMIB classes are not Offshore Funds, as defined in this proposed exemption, no plans will be permitted to invest in these WMIB classes.” Wellington represents that this statement is overly-broad in that ERISA-covered plans can invest in these classes as long as such investment does not constitute a prohibited transaction either because the Offshore Fund is not a party in interest or because there is an alternative exemption available. Accordingly, Wellington requests that the last sentence in Footnote 3 be limited to situations in which the investment is made “pursuant to this exemption.” In addition, Wellington requests that the Department clarify by adding the words “pursuant to this exemption” to such footnote so that the sentence will only apply when this exemption is being utilized. In response to this comment, the Department has noted Wellington's clarification to Footnote 3 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. 2. *Representation 5.* Representation 5 of the Summary of Facts and Representations contains a detailed discussion of the fact that the Offshore Corporations are not “highly leveraged” relative to the universe of hedge funds. Although Wellington agrees with this factual statement, as a general matter, Wellington states that certain of the details included in Representation 5 and accompanying Footnote 6 are not entirely accurate because they are based on historical facts rather than future events. For example, Wellington explains that Footnote 6 states that the long exposure number for the WMIB and Archipelago class funds “never exceeds 150%.” While this statement was historically true at the time Wellington submitted the information, it was intended to be factual evidence supporting the general proposition that these funds are not highly leveraged, not a representation that this percentage would never exceed 150%. Accordingly, Wellington states that the details of Representation 6 are intended to reflect the specific historical information submitted by Wellington and are subject to change over time as long as the Offshore Corporations remain not highly leveraged on a relative basis. Also, on a related point, to be consistent with its submissions, Wellington indicates that the word “generally” should be inserted immediately before the word “subject” in the third line, and immediately before the word “limited” in the eighth line, of the second paragraph of Representation 5. In response to this comment, the Department acknowledges Wellington's clarifications to Representation 5 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. 3. *Representation 6.* The last sentence of the first paragraph of Representation 6 of the Summary of Facts and Representations states that no Client Plans are currently invested in Shares. Wellington represents that this statement is not entirely accurate because a Client Plan may have acquired shares in reliance on PTE 96-23 (61 FR 15975, April 10, 1996), the class exemption for In-House Asset Managers or another exemption. In any event, Wellington explains that this statement is not material. Accordingly, Wellington requests that the words “but not by any Client Plans” be deleted from Representation 6. In response to this comment, the Department notes this clarification to Representation 6 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. 4. *Representation 8.* The last sentence of Representation 8 of the Summary of Facts and Representations states that various offshore Wellington affiliates will consent to the jurisdiction of certain U.S. courts and appoint Wellington as their agent for service of process. Wellington wishes to clarify that this will occur when a Client Plan invests in an Offshore Corporation pursuant to this exemption. In response to this comment, the Department notes Wellington's clarification to Representation 8 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. 5. *Representation 11.* In the Summary of Facts and Representations, the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of Representation 11 (and a similar reference in the third parargraph of this representation) states that Wellington Global Administrator provides services to Client Plans. Wellington points out that this entity provides services to the Offshore Funds and the Offshore Corporations, which are not plan asset vehicles. Accordingly, Wellington explains that Wellington Management would not be considered a party in the interest by reason of its ownership of Wellington Global Administrator. However, Wellington explains that Wellington Management is (or may become) a party in the interest with respect to the Client Plans by reason of its being a service provider to such plans. In this regard, Wellington states that Wellington Global Administrator would be a party in interest because it is a corporation that is more than fifty percent owned by Wellington Management, itself a fiduciary and service provider. In response to this comment, the Department acknowledges Wellington's modification to Representation 11 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. 6. *Representation 13.* The last sentence of Representation 13 of the Summary of Facts and Representations, states that no more than five percent of the securities that are not readily marketable will be subject to Wellington's fair value pricing practices. Wellington explains that this statement is incorrect in several respects. First, Wellington indicates in its submission that not more than five percent of the aggregate securities held by the Offshore Fund had been subject to its fair value pricing practices. Second, Wellington explains that this statement had been submitted as a historical fact rather than a representation as to future events. Wellington further explains that the first paragraph of Representation 2 of the Summary of Facts and Representations correctly states that not more than 15% of the assets of any Offshore Fund may be invested in securities that are not readily marketable. In response to this comment, the Department notes Wellington's clarification to Representation 13 of the Summary of Facts and Representations. Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, including the comment, the Department has determined to grant the exemption as modified or clarified above. For further information regarding the comment and other matters discussed herein, interested persons are encouraged to obtain copies of the exemption application file (Exemption Application No. D-11343) the Department is maintaining in this case. The complete application file, as well as the comment and all supplemental submissions received by the Department, are made available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice published on October 26, 2007 at 72 FR 60891. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8556. (This is not a toll-free number.) GE Asset Management Incorporated Located in Stamford, Connecticut [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2008-04; Exemption Application No. D-11389] Exemption Section I—Exemption for In-Kind Redemption of Assets The restrictions in sections 406(a)(1)(A) through

(D)and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply, 2 effective March 1, 2006, to certain in-kind redemptions (the Redemption(s)), by plans sponsored by the General Electric Company

(GE)or an affiliate (the Plan(s)), of shares (the Shares) of certain proprietary mutual funds for which GE Asset Management Incorporated

(GEAM)provides investment advisory and other services (the Mutual Fund(s)), provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 2 For purposes of this exemption, references to specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

(A)The Plan pays no sales commissions, redemption fees, or other similar fees in connection with the Redemption (other than customary transfer charges paid to parties other than GEAM and any affiliates thereof (GEAM Affiliates));

(B)The assets transferred to the Plan pursuant to the Redemption consist entirely of cash and Transferable Securities, as such term is defined in section II, below;

(C)With certain exceptions described below, the Plan receives in any Redemption its pro rata portion of the securities that, when added to the cash received, is equal in value to the number of Shares redeemed, as determined in a single valuation performed in the same manner and as of 4 p.m. (local time for the New York Stock Exchange) on the same day, in accordance with Rule 2a-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the 1940 Act), and the then-existing procedures established by the Board of Trustees of the Mutual Fund (using sources independent of GEAM and GEAM Affiliates). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Transferable Securities that are odd lot securities, fractional shares, and accruals on such securities may be distributed in cash;

(D)Neither GEAM, nor any affiliate thereof, receives any direct or indirect compensation, or any fees, including any fees payable pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, in connection with any Redemption of the Shares;

(E)Prior to a Redemption, GEAM provides in writing to an independent fiduciary, as such term is defined in section II (Independent Fiduciary), a full and detailed written disclosure of information regarding the Redemption;

(F)Prior to a Redemption, the Independent Fiduciary provides written authorization for such Redemption to GEAM, such authorization being terminable at any time prior to the date of Redemption without penalty to the Plan;

(G)Before authorizing a Redemption, based on the disclosures provided by GEAM to the Independent Fiduciary, the Independent Fiduciary determines that the terms of the Redemption are fair to the Plan, and comparable to, and no less favorable than, terms obtainable at arm's length between unaffiliated parties, and that the Redemption is in the best interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;

(H)Not later than thirty

(30)business days after the completion of a Redemption, the Mutual Fund will provide to the Independent Fiduciary a written confirmation regarding such Redemption containing:

(i)The total number of Shares of the Mutual Fund and the percentage held by the Plan immediately before the Redemption (and the related per Share net asset value and the total dollar value of the Shares held);

(ii)The identity (and related aggregate dollar value) of each security provided to the Plan pursuant to the Redemption, including each security valued in accordance with Rule 2a-4 under the 1940 Act and the then-existing procedures established by the Board of Trustees of the Mutual Fund (using sources independent of GEAM and GEAM Affiliates);

(iii)The current market price of each security received by the Plan pursuant to the Redemption; and

(iv)The identity of each pricing service or market-maker consulted in determining the value of such securities;

(I)The value of the securities received by the Plan for each redeemed Share, when added to the cash received, equals the net asset value of such Share at the time of the transaction, and such value equals the value that would have been received by any other investor for shares of the same class of the Mutual Fund at that time;

(J)Subsequent to a Redemption, within 180 days of the date of such Redemption, the Independent Fiduciary performs a post-transaction review that will include, among other things, testing a sampling of material aspects of the Redemption deemed in its judgment to be representative, including pricing;

(K)Each of the Plan's dealings with the Mutual Funds, the investment advisers to the Mutual Funds, the principal underwriter for the Mutual Funds, or any affiliated person thereof, are on a basis no less favorable to the Plan than dealings between the Mutual Funds and other shareholders holding shares of the same class as the Shares;

(L)GEAM will maintain, or cause to be maintained, for a period of six years from the date of any covered transaction such records as are necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph

(M)below to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that

(i)this record-keeping condition shall not be violated if, due to circumstances beyond the control of GEAM, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six year period,

(ii)no party in interest with respect to the Plan other than GEAM shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and

(b)of the Code, if such records are not maintained or are not available for examination as required by paragraph

(M)below;

(1)Except as provided in subparagraph

(2)of this paragraph (M), and notwithstanding any provisions of section 504(a)(2) and

(b)of the Act, the records referred to in paragraph

(L)above are unconditionally available at their customary locations for examination during normal business hours by

(i)any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Securities and Exchange Commission,

(ii)any fiduciary of the Plan or any duly authorized representative of such fiduciary,

(iii)any participant, beneficiary, or union employee covered by the Plan or duly authorized representative of such participant, beneficiary, or union employee,

(iv)any employer whose employees are covered by Plan and any employee organization whose members are covered by such Plan.

(2)None of the persons described in paragraphs (M)(1)(ii),

(iii)and

(iv)shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of GEAM or the Mutual Funds, or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential; and

(3)Should GEAM or the Mutual Funds refuse to disclose information on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to paragraph

(2)above, GEAM shall, by the close of the thirtieth

(30th)day following the request, provide a written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and that the Department may request such information. Section II—Definitions

(A)The term “affiliate” means:

(1)Any person (including a corporation or partnership) directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;

(2)Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; and

(3)Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.

(B)The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

(C)The term “net asset value” means the amount for purposes of pricing all purchases and sales calculated by dividing the value of all securities, determined by a method as set forth in the Mutual Fund's prospectus and statement of additional information, and other assets belonging to the Mutual Fund, less the liabilities charged to each such Mutual Fund, by the number of outstanding shares.

(D)The term “Independent Fiduciary” means a fiduciary who is:

(i)Independent of and unrelated to GEAM and its affiliates, and

(ii)appointed to act on behalf of the Plan with respect to the in-kind transfer of assets from one or more Mutual Funds to, or for the benefit of, the Plan. For purposes of this exemption, a fiduciary will not be deemed to be independent of and unrelated to GEAM if:

(i)Such fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with GEAM,

(ii)such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration in connection with any transaction described in this exemption (except that an independent fiduciary may receive compensation from GEAM in connection with the transactions contemplated herein if the amount or payment of such compensation is not contingent upon or in any way affected by the independent fiduciary's ultimate decision), and

(iii)an amount equal to more than two percent (2%) of such fiduciary's gross income, for federal income tax purposes, in its prior tax year, will be paid to such fiduciary by GEAM and its affiliates in such fiduciary's current tax year.

(E)The term “Transferable Securities” means securities that are traded on public securities markets or for which quoted bid and asked prices are available from persons independent of GEAM and would not include the following types of securities or assets:

(a)Securities that would have to be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

(b)securities issued by entities in countries that restrict the holdings of securities by non-nationals, including investment vehicles such as the Mutual Funds, or otherwise limit the ability to transfer the security other than through a local securities exchange transaction; and

(c)certain portfolio assets (such as forward currency contracts, futures and option contracts, swap transactions, and repurchase agreements) that, although they may be liquid and marketable, involve the assumption of contractual obligations, require special trading facilities, or may be traded only with the counterparty to the transactions in order to effect a change in beneficial ownership.

(F)The term “relative” means a “relative” as such term is defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or a “member of the family,” as such term is defined in section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or a brother, sister, or a spouse of a brother or a sister. *Effective Date:* This exemption is effective as of March 1, 2006. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on October 26, 2007 at 72 FR 60899. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karin Weng of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8557. (This is not a toll-free number.) Toeruna Widge IRA (the IRA) Located in Mertztown, Pennsylvania Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2008-05; Exemption Application No. D-11421 Exemption The sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the sale (the Sale) of approximately 59.99 acres of unimproved real property located at Fredericksville Road and Sweitzer Road, Rockland Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania (the Property) by the IRA to Dr. Toeruna Widge (the Applicant), a disqualified person with respect to the IRA, 3 provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 3 Pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3-2(d), the IRA is not within the jurisdiction of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act). However, there is jurisdiction under Title II of the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

(A)All terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to the IRA as those which the IRA could obtain in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party;

(B)The Sales price will be the greater of $390,000 or the fair market value of the Property as of the date of the Sale;

(C)The fair market value of the Property has been determined by a qualified, independent appraiser;

(D)The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash; and

(E)The IRA will not pay any commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the Sale. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to notice of proposed exemption published on January 17, 2008 at 73 FR 3281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh-Viet Ly of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8648 (this is not a toll-free number). General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2)This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

(3)The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of March 2008. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E8-4982 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Application No. D-11416, et al.] Proposed Exemption Involving; Wholesale Electronic Supply Employees Profit Sharing Plan and Trust AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemption. SUMMARY: This document contains a notice of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). Written Comments and Hearing Requests All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemption, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this **Federal Register** Notice. Comments and requests for a hearing should state:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and

(2)the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing. ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5649, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No.____, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or Fax. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to: *moffitt.betty@dol.gov,* or by fax to

(202)219-0204 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The application for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Notice to Interested Persons Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the **Federal Register** and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed exemption was requested in an application filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, this notice of proposed exemption is issued solely by the Department. The application contains representations with regard to the proposed exemption which is summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the application on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations. Wholesale Electronic Supply Employees Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan) Located in Dallas, TX [Application No. D-11416] Proposed Exemption The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570 Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions in sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), and 406 (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(D) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the sale of a note (the Note) by the Plan to Levco Enterprises, Inc., a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)The terms and conditions of the sale are at least as favorable to the Plan as those that the Plan could obtain in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(b)The Plan receives $45,750.00, the outstanding principal balance of the Note;

(c)The sale is a one-time transaction for cash; and

(d)The Plan pays no commissions, costs, nor other expenses in connection with the sale. Summary of Facts and Representations 1. The Plan is a defined contribution, profit sharing plan. As of June 30, 2006, the Plan had 21 participants and beneficiaries. As of the same date, the Plan had total assets of $426,213, which are held by Merrill Lynch. Resolutions approving and authorizing the complete freeze and termination of the Plan, effective February 21, 2007, were adopted by the Board of Directors of Wholesale Electronic Supply, Inc., the Plan sponsor. In connection with the termination of the Plan, an application has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the Service) for a favorable determination regarding the Plan's status as a qualified plan under section 401(a) of the Code. Only after the Plan obtains such a determination from the Service and the requested exemption from the Department with respect to the Note is granted will the Plan's trust be liquidated and all account balances distributed. 2. On February 24, 1987, the Plan sold a 6,315 sq. ft. tract of unimproved land in Dallas (the Flora Street Property), Texas to Savoy Properties Co. (Savoy), an unrelated third party, in exchange for

(i)a 5,400 sq. ft. tract of unimproved land in Dallas, Texas, and

(ii)the Note, secured by the Deed of Trust for the sold property. 1 The Note bears no interest and is due and payable upon the earlier of

(a)the commencement of the development of the Flora Street Property, or

(b)the sale of the Flora Street Property by Savoy. The full face amount of the Note remains outstanding and represents approximately 11 percent of the Plan's assets. The trustee of the Plan, John N. Leedom, proposes the sale of the Note to Levco Enterprises, Inc. (Levco); the Plan sponsor owns 86% of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of Levco, and both are located in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Leedom is also the CEO of both the Plan sponsor and of Levco. 1 The Department expresses no opinion herein as to whether the acquisition and holding of the Note by the Plan as part of the consideration in the 1987 exchange violated any of the provisions of Part 4 of Title I in the Act. The applicant represents that, prior to the 1987 exchange, the Savoy 5,400 sq. ft. tract was between two other tracts already owned by the Plan, and the Plan owned a third separate 6,315 sq. ft. tract in the vicinity. In order to enhance the value of the first two tracts by joining them together as one contiguous property, the Plan trustee approached Savoy about acquiring its 5,400 sq. ft. tract. Because the transaction was sought by the Plan and because the Savoy tract had special value to the Plan, Savoy was not a motivated seller and was reluctant to pay an additional amount of cash in the exchange of its property for the larger tract owned by the Plan. The Plan trustee, however, determined that it was in the best interests of the Plan to acquire the Savoy tract and agreed to the exchange, plus the receipt of additional consideration in the form of the Note. According to the applicant, the adjacency premium commanded by the Savoy tract was due to the Plan's subsequent assemblage of a larger, contiguous piece of property whose increase in value exceeded any risk associated with holding the non-interest-bearing Note. According to the applicant, this consolidated property was the sole real estate asset held by the Plan and was sold in 2005 to an unrelated third party. 3. The Note was appraised by a qualified, independent appraiser Stephen M. LaGrasta, MAI, with Yates-LaGrasta, Inc., located in Houston, Texas. It is represented that Yates-LaGrasta, Inc. regularly performs appraisals for institutional clients, including banks, regulatory agencies, insurance companies, trusts, and state and federal courts. Using a discounting process, Mr. LaGrasta opined that the fair market value for the real estate lien Note was $5,623, as of February 20, 2007. The principal balance outstanding under the Note is $45,750.00. 4. Levco will pay a purchase price of $45,750.00 for the Note. The sale of the Note to Levco will be a one-time transaction for cash and will provide the liquidity necessary to make final distributions to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries. Levco is bearing the costs of the exemption application and of notifying interested persons. 5. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed transaction satisfies the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:

(a)The terms and conditions of the sale will be at least as favorable to the Plan as those that the Plan could obtain in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(b)The Plan will receive $45,750.00, the outstanding principal balance of the Note;

(c)The sale will be a one-time transaction for cash; and

(d)The Plan will pay no commissions, costs, nor other expenses in connection with the sale. *Notice to Interested Persons:* Notice of the proposed exemption shall be given to all interested persons by first-class mail within 10 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Notice to interested persons shall include a copy of this published **Federal Register** notice and inform them of their right to comment. Comments with respect to the proposed exemption are due within 40 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karin Weng of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8557. (This is not a toll-free number.) General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2)Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

(3)The proposed exemption, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

(4)The proposed exemption, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March, 2008. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E8-4981 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [NOTICE: (08-021)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Dr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The LIST System form is used primarily to support services at GSFC dependent upon accurate locator type information. The Personal Identifiable Information

(PII)is maintained, protected, and used for mandatory security functions. The system also serves as a tool for performing short and long-term institutional planning. II. Method of Collection Approximately 46% of the data is collected electronically by means of the data entry screen that duplicates the Goddard Space Flight Center form GSFC 24-27 in the LISTS system. The remaining data is keyed into the system from hardcopy version of form GSFC 24-27. III. Data *Title:* Locator and Information Services Tracking System (LISTS) Form. *OMB Number:* 2700-0064. *Type of review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Federal government, individuals or households, and business or other for-profit. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 8,455. *Hours Per Request:* 0.08 hours/5 minutes. *Annual Burden Hours:* 702. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Associate CIO for Policy and Investments (Acting), Office of the CIO. [FR Doc. E8-4991 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-017] Dominion Nuclear Power, LLC; North Anna Power Station Combined License Application; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental; Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process Dominion Nuclear Power, LLC (Dominion), has submitted an application for a combined license

(COL)for its North Anna Power Station (NAPS or North Anna) site to build Unit 3, located in Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 40 miles north northwest of Richmond. The application for the COL was submitted by letter dated November 26, 2007, pursuant to the requirements of Title 10, Part 52. A notice of receipt and availability of the application, which included the environmental report (ER), was published in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2007 (72 FR 70616). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application for the COL was published in the **Federal Register** on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6528). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will be preparing an environmental impact statement

(EIS)in support of the review of the COL application and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as described in 10 CFR 51.29. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8(c), “Coordination with The National Environmental Policy Act” the NRC staff intends to use the process and documentation required for the preparation of an EIS to the comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, in lieu of the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.50, Dominion submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 51 and 52 and is available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , which provides access through the NRC's Electronic Reading Room

(ERR)link. The accession number in ADAMS for the ER is ML073321238. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by sending an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . The application may also be viewed on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/north-anna.html* . In addition, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library in Mineral, Virginia; Hanover Branch Library in Hanover, Virginia; Orange County Library in Orange, Virginia; Salem Church Library in Fredericksburg, Virginia; and C. Melvin Snow Memorial Branch Library in Spotsylvania, Virginia have agreed to make the ER available for public inspection. The following key reference documents related to the COL application and the NRC staff's review process are available through the NRC's Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov:* a. 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, b. 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, c. 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, d. NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, e. NUREG/BR-0298, Brochure on Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process, f. Fact Sheet on Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process, g. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations, h. Regulatory Guide 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, and i. NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. The regulations, NUREG-series documents, regulatory guides, and fact sheet can be found under Document Collections in the Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web page. Finally, Office Instruction LIC-203 can be found in ADAMS in two parts under accession numbers ML011710073 (main text) and ML011780314 (charts and figures). This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare an EIS in support of the review of the application for the COL at the North Anna COL site. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (issuance of the COL at the NAPS COL site) include no action and consideration of alternative sites. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2) to prepare an EIS in connection with the issuance of a COL. This notice is being published in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)and NRC regulations found in 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the EIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft EIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the EIS will be used to accomplish the following: a. Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the EIS; b. Determine the scope of the EIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth; c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant; d. Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of the scope of the EIS being considered; e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action; f. Identify parties consulting with the NRC under the NHPA, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(i); g. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule; h. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and i. Describe how the EIS will be prepared and include any contractor assistance to be used. The NRC invites the following entities to participate in the scoping process: a. The applicant, Dominion; b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards; c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards; d. Any affected Indian tribe; e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and f. Any person who intends to petition for leave to intervene. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC will hold a public scoping meeting for the EIS regarding the North Anna COL application on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at the Louisa County High School, 757 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia. The meeting will convene at 7 p.m. and will continue until approximately 10 p.m. The meeting will be transcribed and will include:

(1)An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the EIS, the proposed review schedule, and

(2)the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the EIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host an informal discussion one hour before the start of the meeting. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the EIS will be accepted during the informal discussion open house. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting Ms. Alicia Williamson or Ms. Laura Quinn at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1878 or 2220, respectively. In addition, persons can register via e-mail to the NRC at: *NORTHANNA.COLAEIS@nrc.gov* , no later than April 10, 2008. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of the meeting. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Public comments will be considered in the scoping process for the EIS. Ms. Williamson or Ms. Quinn will need to be contacted no later than April 7, 2008, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. Members of the public may send written comments on the scope of the North Anna COL environmental review to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Comments may also be delivered to Room T-6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., during Federal workdays. To be considered in the scoping process, comments should be received by the end of the scoping comment period, which is May 16, 2008. Written comments should be postmarked by date May 16, 2008. Electronic comments may be sent via the Internet to the NRC at *NORTHANNA.COLAEIS@nrc.gov* . Submissions should be sent no later than May 16, 2008, to be considered in the scoping process. Comments will be available in the meeting summary report electronically and accessible through the NRC's ERR link at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Participation in the scoping process for the EIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the EIS relates. Notice of a hearing regarding the application for a COL will be the subject of a future **Federal Register** notice. At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for inspection through the NRC's ERR link. The staff will then prepare and issue for comment the draft EIS, which will be the subject of separate **Federal Register** notices and a separate public meeting. A copy of the draft EIS will be available for public inspection at the above-mentioned address, and one copy per request will be provided free of charge. After receipt and consideration of the comments, the NRC staff will prepare a final EIS, (which will also be available for public inspection). Information about the proposed EIS and the scoping process may be obtained from Ms. Alicia Williamson, Environmental Project Manager, 301-415-1878. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James E. Lyons, Division Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-5009 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET FY 2007 Pilot Program for Alternative Approaches to Performance and Accountability Reporting Open Forum AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ACTION: Notice of date change for open forum. SUMMARY: The open forum on the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report

(PAR)pilot previously scheduled for April 14, 2008 will now be held at the National Academy of Public Administration

(NAPA)on April 10, 2008 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Those interested in participating should respond to the questions listed below by Email to either Regina Kearney at *rkearney@omb.eop.gov,* or Pat Harris at *pharris@omb.eop.gov* by close of business March 28, 2008. • Do the PAR pilot component documents (Annual Financial Report, Annual Performance Report, and Highlights): ○ Provide an enhanced presentation of the financial and performance information in a more transparent way (i.e. information is presented in a manner that is user friendly and easy enough for a novice reader to understand)? ○ Report financial and performance information more meaningful (i.e. financial and performance data is reliable, relevant, and include measurable results linked to strategic goals)? ○ Tailor financial and performance information to meet stakeholder needs? ○ Report performance and financial results candidly and clearly articulate remedies to performance or financial shortfalls? • Are the PAR pilot component documents easily accessible via the web and are they easy to use? • Did the development of the PAR pilot component documents: ○ Improve internal and external communications? ○ Increase/decrease the burden on preparers? • What are individuals' recommendations for improving performance and financial reporting? For additional background information regarding the open forum and the PAR pilot, please see OMB's pilot notice of January 30, 2008 (73 FR 5600). DATES: April 10, 2008 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The forum will be held in the National Academy of Public Administration

(NAPA)building located at 900 7th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20001. Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the forum date. Electronic mail comments may be submitted to: *rkearney@omb.eop.gov* or *pharris@omb.eop.gov.* Please include “PAR Pilot Open Forum” in the subject line and put the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic message and as an attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and E-mail address in the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted by mail at 725 17th St., NW., Room 6025, Washington, DC 20503. Please advise also if you will require any special accommodations in order to participate in the forum. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Kearney, OMB Office of Federal Financial Management, 202-395-3993 or e-mail: *rkearney@omb.eop.gov.* Pat Harris OMB, Office of Performance and Personnel Management, at 202-395-5018 or *pharris@omb.eop.gov.* Dustin Brown, Deputy Assistant Director for Management. [FR Doc. 08-1019 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 30

Traces to 30 documents

CFR