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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-17 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

59,319 words·~270 min read·/register/2008/03/17/08-1041

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 52 Monday, March 17, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0300; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-019-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The assessment and lightning tests showed that certain fuel tube self-bonded couplings do not provide sufficient lightning current capability. The assessment also showed that single failure of the integral bonding wire of the self-bonded couplings could affect electrical bonding between the tubes. Insufficient electrical bonding between fuel tubes or insufficient current capability of fuel tube couplings, if not corrected, could result in arcing and potential ignition source[s] inside the fuel tank during lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7321; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0300; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-019-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-02, dated January 3, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2C10/CL-600-2D24 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment
(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment and lightning tests showed that certain fuel tube self-bonded couplings do not provide sufficient lightning current capability. The assessment also showed that single failure of the integral bonding wire of the self-bonded couplings could affect electrical bonding between the tubes. Insufficient electrical bonding between fuel tubes or insufficient current capability of fuel tube couplings, if not corrected, could result in arcing and potential ignition source[s] inside the fuel tank during lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the replacement of certain fuel tube couplings with redesigned couplings. For certain airplanes, the AD You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation Number 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 160 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 32 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $409,600, or $2,560 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0300; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-019-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 16, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10169 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15025 inclusive; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2C10/CL-600-2D24 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards, introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment
(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment and lightning tests showed that certain fuel tube self-bonded couplings do not provide sufficient lightning current capability. The assessment also showed that single failure of the integral bonding wire of the self-bonded couplings could affect electrical bonding between the tubes. Insufficient electrical bonding between fuel tubes or insufficient current capability of fuel tube couplings, if not corrected, could result in arcing and potential ignition source[s] inside the fuel tank during lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates the replacement of certain fuel tube couplings with redesigned couplings. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 4,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For airplanes on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, dated January 4, 2005, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD: Replace fuel tube couplings inside the wing and center fuel tanks with redesigned couplings, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007.
(2)For airplanes on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, dated January 4, 2005, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD: Do a visual inspection of the aft scavenge ejector fuel couplings inside the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks to determine if redesigned couplings are installed, and replace with redesigned couplings as applicable, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7321; fax
(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)* Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-02, dated January 3, 2008, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-28-014, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5335 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0331; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-009-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company, Models 208 and 208B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 208 and 208B airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspection of the left and right wing wire bundle(s) and repair or replacement of damaged wire. This proposed AD would also require inspecting the wire bundles for correct attachment to the anchor points and correcting any deficient attachments. This proposed AD results from chafed wiring found on wire bundles in the left and right wings containing the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation on the Cessna 208B airplanes. Improper installation of wire bundle supporting hardware can cause chafed wiring in the affected bundles. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring of the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation systems. This condition could result in incorrect fuel quantity indications, loss of low fuel quantity annunciations, or loss of the autocontrol wing de-ice system. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277-7704; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Hilton, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4173; e-mail address: *daniel.hilton@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-0331; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-009-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We have reports of chafed wiring found on wire bundles in the left and right wings containing the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation on several Cessna Model 208B airplanes. Improper installation of wire bundle supporting hardware can cause chafed wiring in the affected bundles. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring of the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation systems. This condition, if not corrected, could result in incorrect fuel quantity indications, loss of low fuel quantity annunciations, or loss of the auto-control wing de-ice system. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin CAB08-02, dated February 4, 2008. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the left and right wing electrical wire bundles; • Repairing and properly attaching damaged wires; and • Properly securing loosely attached wires. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require the inspection of the wire harness and repair or replacement of damaged wire. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 512 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not Applicable $80 $40,960 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair/replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 $10 $90 Warranty credit will be given to the extent specified in Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin CAB08-02, dated February 4, 2008. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Cessna Aircraft Company:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0331; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-009-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by May 16, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos. 208 20800001 through 20800415. 208B 208B0001 through 208B1299. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of chafed wiring found on wire bundles in the left and right wings containing the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation on several Cessna Model 208B airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring of the auto-control wing de-ice system, fuel quantity indication, and low fuel annunciation systems. This condition, if not corrected, could result in incorrect fuel quantity indications, loss of low fuel quantity annunciations, or loss of the auto-control wing de-ice system. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect the left and right wing electrical wire bundles at the anchor attach points for loose and damaged wiring Within the next 200 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin CAB08-02, dated February 4, 2008.
(2)If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, damaged wires are found, repair or replace damaged wires and properly attach wire bundle Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin CAB08-02, dated February 4, 2008.
(3)If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, loosely attached wires were found, secure any wires that are loosely attached and properly attach wire bundle supporting hardware Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin CAB08-02, dated February 4, 2008. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Daniel Hilton, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4173; e-mail address: *daniel.hilton@faa.gov* . Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277-7704; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 11, 2008. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5269 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 181 [Docket No. USCG-2007-29236] Hull Identification Numbers for Recreational Vessels AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces it is again requesting comments on the costs and benefits of expanding the existing 12-character Hull Identification Number
(HIN)in order to provide additional information identifying vessels. The Coast Guard requests public comments on this issue and on the specific questions in this Notice. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-29236 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:* 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, call Philip Cappel, Office of Boating Safety, Recreational Boating Product Assurance Division, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1076. 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 and related material on this notice. 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 the 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-2007-29236), and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the 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 be able to read your original submission. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. *Viewing the comments:* To view the comments, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2007-29236) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *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* . Background and Purpose The existing Hull Identification Number
(HIN)is a unique 12-character serial number required on each recreational vessel manufactured in or imported into the United States for the purposes of sale. The Coast Guard assigns the first three characters, a Manufacturer Identification Code (MIC), which identifies the manufacturer or importer; characters four through eight are a manufacturer serial number; characters nine and ten indicate date of certification for vessels subject to safety standards or the date of manufacture for vessels not subject to standards; and characters eleven and twelve indicate the model year. The proposed expanded HIN would consist of five additional characters. Four of the additional characters would indicate length, hull material, principal means of propulsion, and vessel type. The fifth additional character would be a check digit. The expanded HIN with its check digit would reflect additional information useful to law enforcement authorities, marine bankers, marine insurers, boating accident data analysts, and marine investigators, and also provide a useful means of identifying vessels in the Vessel Identification System (VIS). The VIS is only applicable to recreational vessels that are registered by a State (see 33 CFR 187.3). The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is required to establish the VIS (46 U.S.C. chapters 125, 131 & 313) for use by the public and law enforcement officials. The Secretary has delegated to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, the authority to implement VIS. VIS will provide a nationwide pool of vessel and vessel owner information that will help in the identification and recovery of stolen vessels, deter vessel theft, and will aid in homeland security. Regulatory History We published a Request for Comments in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 1998 (63 FR 63638), soliciting comments on:
(1)The expected benefits of an expanded HIN with vessel-specific characters and a check digit;
(2)the manner in which the Coast Guard should exempt small entities and the builders of high-volume, low-cost vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, and inflatables; and
(3)the estimated burdens and costs to boat manufacturers if the HIN regulations were revised to require vessel-specific characters and a check digit. The comment period closed on February 16, 1999. We received 31 comments, only one of which contained any economic data that could be used to determine the benefits of a requirement for an expanded HIN containing vessel-specific characters and a check digit. Only four comments were in favor of allowing exceptions for small entities and the builders of high-volume, low-cost vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, and inflatable boats. None of the comments contained information about the estimated burdens and costs to boat manufacturers. Discussion States, bankers, insurers, and theft and accident investigators favor an expanded format. With vessel-specific characters and a check digit it would deter both vessel theft and the alteration of HIN's for fraudulent purposes and could allow for more in-depth analysis of accident data. In addition, there are other people who favor the existing 12-character HIN format. A rulemaking to increase the number of characters in the HIN to include vessel-specific information could aid in the recovery of stolen vessels, reduce fraud, improve the accuracy of accident data analysis, and help in the remote identification of a “suspect” vessel. In addition there may be other benefits associated with expanding the existing 12-character HIN to include certain vessel-specific information. Investigations of lost and stolen vessels depend, in large part, on the proper authorities' ability to identify a vessel. The proposed regulations would aid in this pursuit by expanding the current 12-character HIN to include detailed information about each vessel. In addition, a check digit in the expanded HIN would make alteration of an HIN more difficult thereby helping to prevent fraud in the sale of vessels. Boating accident statistics are compiled annually by the Coast Guard from data received from the States and territories through the Boating Accident Report Database (BARD). These statistics are analyzed to, among other uses, determine the different causes of accidents and what course(s) of action, if any, may be taken by the Boating Safety Program to reduce the number of accidents. The accident analyses, however, have been hindered by the lack of specific descriptive information regarding the vessels involved in the accidents and/or the inaccuracy of the vessel descriptive data provided in the BARD system. Boating accident reports are submitted by the owner/operator of the vessel or, in the case of serious accidents, by an investigating officer. Since the accident information is being provided by thousands of different individuals the reports may not always be accurate as to the exact description of the vessel, which leads to inaccuracies in the analyses of the accident database. A 17-character HIN with the additional descriptors built into the HIN is expected to improve both the scope and the accuracy of the data analyses. Adding vessel description information to the HIN could also improve the personal safety of State water patrol officers by enabling them, prior to boarding a vessel, through the use of computer lookup of the vessel registration number, to get an accurate description of the vessel via the HIN and alert them to approach with caution if the description does not match the vessel they are planning to board. However, the Coast Guard lacks detailed information about the anticipated costs and benefits of the expanded HIN format. Also, we still believe that, if an expanded HIN format, consisting of vessel-specific characters and a check digit, is adopted, the Coast Guard should be allowed to except manufacturers that are small business entities, and manufacturers of high-volume, low-cost vessels to minimize costs and information collection burdens. Federal agencies with regulatory programs are subject to regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act which are enforced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The intent of the Act is to ensure that the Federal Government imposes only the minimum burden on the public in collecting information and requiring the maintenance of records, and that the information collected or maintained is necessary and useful. A regulation requiring manufacturers to display labels, such as HIN's, is an example of a collection of information requirement. The Coast Guard encourages you to comment on:
(1)The expected benefits and costs of an expanded Hull Identification Number with vessel-specific characters and a check digit;
(2)the manner in which the Coast Guard should except small entities and the builders of high-volume, low-cost vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, and inflatables;
(3)the estimated collection of information burdens to boat manufacturers if the current 12-character HIN regulation were revised to require additional vessel-specific characters and a check digit; and
(4)possible alternatives to an expanded HIN. Data is needed to support a decision-making process. Therefore we particularly need your help in answering any of the following questions (please provide arguments or data to support each answer): 1. What are the expected benefits if the HIN on a vessel included vessel-specific characters (e.g. vessel length, hull material, means of propulsion, boat type, and check digit)? 2. What are the estimated numbers of thefts that might be prevented? 3. What are the estimated numbers of additional lost or stolen vessels that might be recovered? 4. What is the estimated value of insurance company losses that might be prevented? 5. What are the estimated numbers of fraud attempts that might be prevented? 6. What are the estimated reductions in investigatory expenditures? 7. What are the expected benefits from improved accident data analyses? 8. How long will it take and what will it cost to determine a 17-character HIN? 9. How long will it take and what will it cost to affix a 17-character HIN to the hull of a vessel? 10. What are the measurable resources such as labor and capital that you would include in a cost-benefit analysis of a 17-character HIN implementation? 11. Should the Coast Guard consider excepting all builders of non-powered vessels? 12. Should the Coast Guard consider excepting manufacturers of boats that sell for less than a certain dollar value? 13. What alternatives are available that would reduce adverse impacts on small entities and builders of high-volume, low-cost vessels? 14. Should the Coast Guard consider a phase-in period for compliance with a 17-character HIN regulation? What time frame would be appropriate? 15. What are effective alternatives to a 17-character HIN? Examples could include the following: a. Leave the current 12-character HIN as is. b. Implement the Vessel Identification System in lieu of implementing a 17-character HIN. c. Develop a regulation requiring uniform State titling/registration policies. d. Develop a regulation requiring a uniform method to affix the HIN that would reduce the likelihood of tampering. e. Increase security around shore and harbor facilities (more officers, tracking/monitoring devices). f. Require other security measures during vessel construction, such as barcode HINs, radio frequency identification tags, etc. Dated: March 7, 2008. James A. Watson, Rear Admiral (Lower Half), U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5326 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 080229341-8367-01] RIN 0648-XF89 Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Notice of Finding on a Petition to List Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound (Washington) as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of finding; request for information, and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: On October 29, 2007, we, NMFS, received new information and a request to reconsider our “not warranted” finding on a petition submitted in April 2007 to list bocaccio ( *Sebastes paucispinis* ), canary rockfish ( *S. pinniger* ), yelloweye rockfish ( *S. ruberrimus* ), greenstripe rockfish ( *S. elongatus* ) and redstripe rockfish ( *S. proriger* ) in Puget Sound (Washington) as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We consider this a new petition and find that this new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Accordingly, we are initiating a status review of these five rockfish species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information regarding the population structure and status of these rockfish species. DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received by May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XF89, addressed to: Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, by any of the following methods: • *Electronic Submissions:* Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • *Facsimile (fax):* 503-231-5441 • *Mail:* 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232. • *Hand delivery:* You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above. *Instructions:* All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* or *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov* without change. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503)231-2005; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list distinct population segments
(DPSs)of bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish in Puget Sound as endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to designate critical habitat. We declined to initiate a review of the species' status under the ESA, finding that the petition failed to present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On October 29, 2007, we received a letter from Sam Wright presenting information that was not included in the April 2007 petition, and requesting that we reconsider our October 5, 2007, decision not to initiate a review of the species' status. We considered the supplemental information provided in the letter, in addition to the information submitted previously in the April 2007 petition, as a new petition to list bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish and to designate critical habitat. Copies of the April 2007 petition, our October 2007 petition finding, and the October 2007 letter are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES , above). ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)contains provisions concerning petitions from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the
(ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). In addition to the information presented in a petition, we review other data and publications readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files) to determine whether it is in general agreement with the information presented in the petition. When it is found that substantial information is presented in the petition, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. Within 1 year of receipt of the petition, we must make one of the following findings:
(1)the petitioned action is not warranted;
(2)the petitioned action is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a propped listing determination; or
(3)the petitioned action is warranted but that a proposed listing is precluded by pending rulemaking for other species. Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). A joint NOAA-USFWS policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife” (ESA section 3(16)) for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The joint DPS policy established two criteria that must be met for a population or group of populations to be considered a DPS:
(1)the population segment must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and
(2)the population segment must be significant to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A population segment may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
(1)it is markedly separated from other populations of the same biological taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or
(2)it is delimited by international governmental boundaries across which there is a significant difference in exploitation control, habitat management, conservation status, or if regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If a population is determined to be discrete, the agency must then consider whether it is significant to the taxon to which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the significance of a discrete population include:
(1)persistence of the discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the taxon;
(2)evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range;
(3)evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its historical geographic range; or
(4)evidence that the discrete population has marked genetic differences from other populations of the species. A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). Listing Factors and Basis for Determination Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered based on any of the following factors:
(1)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(2)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(3)disease or predation;
(4)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(5)other natural or manmade factors affecting the species continuing existence. Listing determinations are based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data after taking into account any efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species. Distribution and Life-History Traits of Rockfishes Rockfishes are a diverse group of marine fishes (about one hundred and two species worldwide and at least seventy-two species in the northeastern Pacific (Kendall, 1991)), and are among the most common benthic fish on the Pacific coast of North America (Love *et al.* , 2002). Adult rockfish can be the most abundant fish in various coastal benthic habitats such as relatively shallow subtidal kelp forests, rocky reefs, and rocky outcrops in submarine canyons at depths greater than 980 feet (300 m) (Yoklavich, 1998). The life history of rockfish is different than that of most other bony fishes. Whereas most bony fishes fertilize their eggs externally, fertilization and embryo development in rockfishes is internal, and female rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters, and may be distributed over a wide area extending several hundred miles (several hundred kilometers) offshore (Love *et al.* , 2002). Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for several months being passively dispersed by ocean currents. The dispersal potential for larvae varies by species depending on the length of time larvae remain in the pelagic environment (i.e., “pelagic larval duration”), and the fecundity of females (i.e., the more larval propagules a species produces, the greater the potential that some larvae will be transported long distances). Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, and juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages (Sumida and Moster, 1984). Survival and subsequent recruitment of young rockfishes exhibit considerable interannual variability (Ralston and Howard, 1995). New recruits may be found in tide pool habitats, and shallow coastal waters associated with rocky bottoms and algae (Love, 1996; Sauma and Ralston, 1995). Juvenile and subadults may be more common than adults in shallow water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms (Love *et al.* , 2002). Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (Garrison and Miller, 1982; Love, 1996), but generally exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outrcrops (Yoklavich *et al.* , 2000). Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (Love, 1996; Sumida and Moser, 1984). Many species of rockfishes are slow-growing, long-lived (50-140 years; Archibald *et al.* , 1981), and mature at older ages (6-12 yrs; Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987). *Bocaccio* Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, Baja California, to the Gulf of Alaska off Krozoff and Kodiak Islands (Chen, 1971; Miller and Lea, 1972). They are most common within this range between Oregon and northern Baja California (Love *et al.* , 2002). Bocaccio are most common between 160 and 820 feet (50 and 250 m) depth, but may be found as deep as 1560 feet (475 m) (Orr *et al.* , 2000). Bocaccio larvae have relatively high dispersal potential with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 155 days (Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and fecundity ranging from 20,000 to over 2 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love *et al.* , 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature in 4 to 6 years (MBC, 1987). Adults are difficult to age, but are suspected to live as long as 50 years (Love *et al.* , 2002). *Canary Rockfish* - Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; Mecklenburg *et al.* , 2002). Within this range canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon (Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Canary rockfish primarily inhabit waters 160 to 820 feet (50 to 250 m) deep (Orr *et al.* , 2000), but may be found up to 1400 feet (425 m) depth (Boehlert, 1980). Canary rockfish larvae have relatively high dispersal potential with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 116 days (Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and fecundity ranging from 260,000 to 1.9 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love *et al.* , 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature at 14 inches (35.6 cm) total length (5 to 6 years of age) (Hart, 1973). Canary rockfish can live to be 75 years old (Love, 1996). *Greenstripe Rockfish* - Greenstripe rockfish range from Cedros Island, Baja California, to Green Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Within this range greenstripe rockfish are common between British Columbia and Punta Colnett in Northern Baja California (Eschmeyer *et al.* , 1983; Hart, 1973; Love *et al.* , 2002). Greenstripe rockfish is a deep-water species that can inhabit waters from 170 to 2715 feet (52 to 828 m) in depth, but is most common between 330 and 820 feet (100 and 250 m) depth (Orr *et al.* , 2000). Estimates of pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for greenstripe rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature at 7 to 7.5 inches (18 to 19 cm) total length (Love *et al.* , 1990). Male greenstripe rockfish can live to approximately 37 years of age, and females to approximately 28 years of age (Love *et al.* , 1990). *Redstripe Rockfish* - Redstripe rockfish occur from southern Baja California to the Bering Sea (Hart, 1973; Love *et al.* , 2002). Redstripe rockfish have been reported between 39 and 1400 feet (12 and 425 m) in depth, but 95 percent occur between 490 and 900 feet (150 and 275 m) (Love *et al.* , 2002). Estimates of pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for redstripe rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature at 11 to 11.5 inches (28 to 29 cm) total length (Garrison and Miller, 1982), and may reach 55 years of age (Munk, 2001). *Yelloweye Rockfish* - Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from central California northward to the Gulf of Alaska (Clemens and Wilby, 1961; Eschmeyer *et al.* , 1983; Hart, 1973; Love, 1996). Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters 80 to 1560 feet (25 to 475 m) deep (Orr *et al.* , 2000), but are most commonly found between 300 to 590 feet (91 to 180 m) depth (Love *et al.* , 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature by 16 inches (41 cm) total length (about 6 years) (Love, 1996). Estimates of pelagic larval duration are not available for yelloweye rockfish, although we expect that it would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Fecundity ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love *et al.* , 2002). Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfishes, living to be at least 118 years old (Love, 1996; Love *et al.* , 2002; O'Connell and Funk, 1986). Previous Rockfish Petitions and Status Review In February 1999 we received a petition from Mr. Wright to list 18 species of marine fishes in Puget Sound under the ESA, including 14 species of rockfish. We issued a positive 90-day finding on June 21, 1999 (64 FR 33037), and initiated ESA status reviews for seven of the petitioned species, including three rockfish species (copper, brown and quillback rockfishes). For the remaining 11 petitioned rockfish species, which included the five rockfish species that are the subject of this notice, we found that there was insufficient information concerning stock structure, status and trends. Consequently, for these 11 species, we found that the petition failed to present substantial information to suggest that listing these species in Puget Sound may be warranted. In 2001 we convened a Biological Review Team
(BRT)to evaluate the population structure and biological status of the three rockfish species for which we initiated status reviews. The BRT concluded that the brown, copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound Proper (defined as east of Deception Pass and to the south and east of Admiralty Head, encompassing southern Puget Sound, Whidbey Basin, Hood Canal, and the main Basin) constitute DPSs for consideration as “species” under the ESA (Stout *et al.* , 2001). On April 3, 2001, we concluded that these DPSs did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered species (66 FR 17659). Although these DPSs had experienced declines over the last 40 years, likely due to overharvest, we noted that the populations appeared stable over the most recent 5 years. In September 2006, we received another petition from Mr. Wright to list the Puget Sound DPSs of copper and quillback rockfishes as endangered or threatened species under the ESA. The petition did not include new data or information regarding the abundance, trends, productivity, or distribution for these species. The petitioner criticized the risk assessment methods of the 2001 BRT and disagreed with our conclusion that the two DPSs did not warrant listing. We determined that the September 2006 petition from Mr. Wright failed to present substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the ESA listing of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound may be warranted (72 FR 2863; January 23, 2007). Analysis of Mr. Wright's New Petition We reviewed the information from Mr. Wright's April 2007 petition, the supplemental information provided in his October 2007 letter, as well as other information readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within our files), to determine if the new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Specifically, we evaluated whether:
(1)the 5 rockfish species may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs; and
(2)the 5 species, or putative DPSs, may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Information Regarding the DPS Structure of the Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound Under the 1996 joint DPS policy, a population or group of populations is considered a DPS if it is “discrete” and “significant” to the remainder of the species to which it belongs (51 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petitioner contends that the five petitioned species likely warrant delineation as Puget Sound DPSs based on:
(1)relatively closed oceanographic circulation patterns in the Puget Sound area (see Stout *et al.* , 2001, at p. 75) that should promote the retention of rockfish larvae originating within Puget Sound, and limit the delivery of larvae from sources external to Puget Sound; and
(2)NMFS' finding in 2001 that brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound respectively warranted delineation as DPSs (Stout *et al.* , 2001; 66 FR 17659, April 3, 2001). Although the five petitioned rockfish species may be considered to have high dispersal “potential” due to their long pelagic larval duration and high fecundity, their realized larval dispersal is determined to a large extent by local oceanographic patterns and larval behavior (Varanasi, 2007). Since the larvae of these rockfish species are generally associated with surface waters during the pelagic dispersal phase, we agree with the petitioner that the relatively closed circulation patterns of surface waters in Puget Sound lends support to the “discreteness” of these species in Puget Sound. Although, as the petitioner acknowledges, there are no population genetic studies of the five petitioned species that include samples from Puget Sound, the available studies of West Coast rockfish suggest that it is reasonable to suspect that there are genetically discrete Puget Sound population segments for these species. There are examples of rockfish populations exhibiting genetic differences in relation to circulation patterns and biogeographic barriers, many of which are probably less restrictive to trans-boundary larval dispersal than the entrance to Puget Sound (Sekino *et al.* , 2001; Varanasi, 2007). Even on the open coast where one might expect oceanographic patterns to result in considerable larval exchange and strong genetic similarities among stocks, the available genetic studies indicate that rockfish species exhibit some level of genetic population structure (Buonaccorsi *et al.* , 2002, 2005; Cope, 2004; Rocha-Olivares and Vetter, 1999). One of the petitioned species, bocaccio, also exhibits genetic population structure on the open coast (Matala *et al.* , 2004), and it is reasonable to assume the it would also show some genetic isolation within Puget Sound relative to other areas (Varanasi, 2007). Genetic studies that include samples from Puget Sound have found that rockfish populations in Puget Sound are generally distinct from populations sampled in other geographic areas (Buonaccorsi *et al.* , 2002, 2005). Based on the above information, we find that the new petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the five petitioned DPSs may satisfy the “discreteness” criterion under the joint DPS policy (Varanasi, 2007). However, “discreteness” does not necessarily indicate that a population group may also be “significant” and hence a DPS for listing consideration. As noted above, the petitioner contends that the 5 petitioned rockfish species are likely DPSs based on our 2001 DPS delineations for brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound (Stout *et al.* , 2001). These three “discrete” population segments were found to be “significant” under the DPS policy because the environmental, geological, and biogeographic characteristics of Puget Sound represent “an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon.” These characteristics unique to the Puget Sound are reflected in likely adaptive life-history differences (e.g., coloration patterns, mating behaviors, or timing of reproduction) for the respective species in Puget Sound relative to elsewhere in their range (Stout *et al.* , 2001). These same characteristics that established the uniqueness of the Puget Sound ecosystem also apply to the 5 petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound (Varanasi, 2007). It is likely that “discrete” population segments for the 5 species would be “significant” under the DPS policy as Puget Sound represents an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We find that the new petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the five petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound may satisfy the “significance” criterion under the joint DPS policy, and thus may warrant delineation as DPSs for listing consideration under the ESA. Information Regarding the Extinction Risk of the Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound The petitioner stresses the importance of age structure, longevity, and the maternal-age effect in evaluating the extinction risk of rockfish populations. (The reader is referred to our earlier petition finding (72 FR 2865; January 23, 2007) for further discussion of the maternal-age effect and related scientific publications.) The importance of this maternal-age effect in the wild depends upon the age structure and age-at-maturity of the specific populations under consideration (72 FR 2865; January, 23, 2007). However, the necessary data are not available to evaluate the actual importance of the maternal-age effect for the five recently petitioned rockfish species. The April 2007 petition provides recreational catch data for the five petitioned species spanning approximately 12 years from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s. These data suggest possible declines for three of the species (bocaccio, greenstripe, and red stripe rockfishes) and no decline for the other two species (canary and yelloweye rockfish). In our October 2007 finding we noted that the support for making any inferences regarding population status was weak, given that the petition did not include information regarding the level or distribution of fishery effort, changes in fisheries practices, or changes in regulations governing fisheries in which the petitioned species are taken as bycatch (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). We concluded that without this additional information it was not possible to determine whether the recreational catch data reflect population status. We concluded that the recreational catch and other anecdotal information in the petition do not represent “substantial scientific or commercial” information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the status of the petitioned species may be at risk. In his October 29, 2007, letter the petitioner presents supplemental information necessary for determining whether the recreational catch data provided in the April 2007 petition are valid reflections of population status for the petitioned species. Specifically, the petitioner provides the information regarding fishery effort, changes in fisheries practices, and changes in fishery regulations that we found lacking in the April 2007 petition. The petitioner explains that there are three possible explanations that might account for a decline in the recreational catch data:
(1)That there was a change in the distribution of fishery effort or a change in the distribution of the petitioned species;
(2)that there was a change in angler behavior or fishery regulations resulting in decline in overall fishery effort; or
(3)that the recreational catch data indeed reflect declining trends in the species' abundance. The petitioner notes that the petitioned species are non-migratory, so a change in the stocks' distribution is not a valid explanation for the observed declining trends in catch for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish and greenstripe rockfish. Moreover, there is no information to suggest that the spatial distribution of fishery effort changed appreciably over the time period to explain the observed trends in the recreational catch data. The petitioner also concludes that the observed trends are not explainable by declining fishery effort due to changes in angler behavior or fishery regulations. During the 12-year period for which there is recreational fishery data, anglers began to directly target rockfish species to compensate for the reduced availability of salmonids for harvest, and anglers were also able to target rockfish aggregations more efficiently and at much greater depths due to rapid advances in fish-finding technology. The petitioner concludes that these changes in angler effort and of rockfish harvest should have led to an increase in total catch. Given this expectation, the petitioner is particularly concerned that observed declines in the catch data for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish, and greenstripe rockfish likely reflect severe declines in the abundance of these stocks. The petitioner further suspects that the increasing fishery effort and efficiency likely masked declining trends in abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish stocks. In support of his qualitative inferences from changes in angler behavior and efficiency, the petitioner provides data for overall fishery effort (measured in the number of angler boat trips) and catch per unit effort over the 12-year period of recreational catch data. Over this period the number of angler trips increased substantially, and there was a decline in the average number of rockfish caught per trip (Palsson *et al.* , 1997; Palsson and Pacunski, 1998; West, 1997). The fishery effort and catch per unit effort data support the petitioner's conclusions that the recreational catch data reflect severe declines in stock abundance for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish, and greenstripe rockfish, and that increasing fishery effort and efficiency over the time period likely masked declines in stock abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish. Finally, the petitioner concludes that the observed declining trends in the recreational catch data cannot be explained by a reduction in catch due to changing fishery regulations. Changes in rockfish catch regulations (e.g., reductions in the daily bag limit) and large scale closures in salmonid fisheries in which rockfish are taken as bycatch did not occur until 1994, well after the period covered by the recreational catch data (1975-1986). Based on the supplemental information, the petitioner concludes that the most parsimonious explanation for the observed trends in the recreational catch data is that they reflect actual declines in the abundance of the five petitioned species in Puget Sound. Petition Finding After reviewing the information contained in the April 2007 petition, the supplemental information contained in the petitioner's October 2007 letter, and other information readily available in our files, we determine that the new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of the five species concerned and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the new petition (i.e., by October 29, 2008) whether the petitioned action is warranted. Information Solicited DPS Structure and Extinction Risk To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, we solicit data, information, and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES ) concerning the status of bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish. We solicit pertinent information such as:
(1)biological or other data pertinent to determining the DPS structure of these 5 rockfish species (e.g., age structure, genetics, migratory patterns, morphology, physiology);
(2)historical trends and current abundance and distribution of these rockfish stocks in Puget Sound;
(3)natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in their survival, distribution, and abundance; and
(4)current or planned activities and their possible impact on these rockfish species (e.g., harvest measures and habitat actions). Efforts Being Made to Protect Puget Sound Rockfish Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to the decline. We then assess conservation measures to determine whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably be implemented, and the degree of certainty that such efforts will be effective in furthering the conservation of the species (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003); and the presence of monitoring provisions that track the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform iterative refinement to management as information is accrued. In some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts are essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits are realized. We also encourage all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protect these 5 rockfish stocks in Washington, as well as information on recently implemented or planned activities and their likely impact(s). References Cited A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: March 11, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5309 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 52 Monday, March 17, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District, South Dakota, Telegraph Forest Management Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to implement multiple resource management actions within the Telegraph Forest Management Project Area to implement the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Telegraph Project Area covers approximately 56,172 acres of National Forest System land and approximately 7,436 acres of interspersed private land about five miles directly south of Lead, South Dakota. Proposed actions include a combination of vegetation and fuels treatments to limit the spread of mountain pine beetle and further reduce the risk of infestation. Actions are also intended to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and to improve vegetative and structural diversity. Treatments are proposed for approximately 31,722 acres of National Forest System Lands. Approximately 83 miles of new road construction would be necessary to carry out the proposed treatments. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis would be most helpful if received by April 14, 2008. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available July 2008, and the final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by September 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, Northern Hills Ranger District at 2014 North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. Oral comments may be submitted by telephone at
(605)642-4622. Electronic comments may be submitted via e-mail at *comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-northern-hills@fs.fed.us* . If submitting electronic comments, please include “Telegraph Project” in the subject line. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Groce, Natural Resource Planner, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. Telephone number:
(605)642-4622. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of and Need for Action The primary purpose of and need for action in the Telegraph project area is to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and insect events. Existing conditions indicate that insect risk ratings and fire hazard ratings are higher than desired. There is an opportunity to move toward Forest-wide objectives outlined for managing insect risk and fire hazard in the current Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). In addition, there is a need to enhance structural and vegetative diversity within the project area. Existing conditions indicate that movement toward a more desirable distribution of structural stages for ponderosa pine stands in areas managed for a resource production emphasis could be achieved through vegetation treatments. There are also opportunities to enhance the condition of lodgepole pine and aspen stands in the project area to help ensure their continued persistence. Finally, in line with Forest Plan objectives, there is a need to contribute to local and regional economies by providing commercial timber harvest opportunities. Proposed Action The proposed action is intended to be responsive to the purpose of and need for action specified for this project and to move conditions within the project area toward more desirable conditions as described in the Forest Plan. The proposed action includes a variety of commercial and non-commercial vegetation and fuels treatments. Some treatments will stand alone, while others include initial treatments as well as follow-up treatments. The following proposed activities will be designed so that they are consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines: • Commercial Hardwood Enhancement (1611 acres) • Commercial Lodgepole Pine Enhancement (405 acres) • Commercial Overstory Removal/Pre-commercial Thinning (9350 acres) • Commercial Overstory Removal/Pre-commercial Thinning/Prescribed Burning (1037 acres) • Commercial Seed Cut/Pre-commercial Thinning/Prescribed Burning (2741 acres) • Commercial Thinning/Pre-commercial Thinning/Prescribed Burning (8675 acres) • Meadow Enhancement (293 acres) • Pre-commercial Thinning (3055 acres) • Pre-commercial Thinning/Prescribed Burning (177 acres) • Prescribed Burning (4312 acres) • Planting of Native Species (66 acres) To facilitate these vegetation treatments, an estimated 83 miles of new National Forest System road would need to be constructed, and 29 miles of currently unclassified road would be added to the system. These roads would be closed following harvest activities. The proposal would also require use of approximately 166 miles of existing National Forest System road. These system roads would need to be prepared for use. Preparation could range from minimal maintenance activities to reconstruction of the road template, depending on the current condition of the road. Responsible Official Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. Nature of Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is whether or not to approve the proposed action or alternatives at this time. No Forest Plan amendments are proposed. Scoping Process Comments and input regarding the proposed action are being requested from the public and other interested parties in conjunction with this notice of intent. The comment period will be open for thirty days, beginning on the date of publication of this notice of intent. Public information meetings regarding this proposal are being scheduled for early April. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is our desire to involve interested parties and especially adjacent landowners in identifying the issues related to proposed activities. Comments will assist in identification of key issues and opportunities to develop project alternatives and design criteria. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days (beginning approximately in July 2008) from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions ( *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts ( *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21). Dated: March 10, 2008. Dennis Jaeger, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest. [FR Doc. E8-5131 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders
(M3)Supplement: 2006-2007 Unfilled Orders Benchmark Survey. *Form Number(s):* MA-3000, MA-3000(I), MA-3000-L1, MA-3000-L2. *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0561. *Type of Request:* Reinstatement, with change, of an expired collection. *Burden Hours:* 3,000. *Number of Respondents:* 6,000. *Average Hours per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders
(M3)survey collects monthly data on shipments, inventories, new orders, and unfilled orders from manufacturing companies. The orders and shipments data are used widely and are valuable tools for analysts of business cycle conditions, including members of the Council of Economic Advisers, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Board, Department of the Treasury, and the business community. New orders serve as an indicator of future production commitments and the data are direct inputs into the leading economic indicator series. New orders, as reported in the monthly survey, are derived by adding shipments to the net change in the unfilled orders from the previous month. The ratio of unfilled orders to shipments is an important indicator of pressure on manufacturing capacity. The monthly M3 estimates are based on a relatively small panel of domestic manufacturers and reflect primarily the month-to-month changes of large companies. There is a clear need for periodic benchmarking of the M3 estimates to reflect the entire manufacturing universe. The Annual Survey of Manufactures
(ASM)provides annual benchmarks for the shipments and inventories, but there is no benchmark for unfilled orders. A benchmark survey for unfilled orders was last conducted for 1999. The industries selected for this survey are those which the Census Bureau determined to maintain considerable unfilled orders. Due to the length of time since the last benchmark survey (8 years), an unfilled orders benchmark survey is necessary to ensure future accuracy of the new orders data and also to determine which NAICS industries continue to maintain unfilled orders. Report forms will be mailed to approximately 6,000 companies requesting data for 47 of 89 NAICS defense and nondefense industry categories for the M3 survey. The Census Bureau will use the information provided by this survey to develop universe estimates of unfilled orders as of the end of 2006 and 2007, and then adjust the monthly M3 data on unfilled orders to these levels. The benchmarked unfilled orders levels will be used to derive estimates of new orders received by manufacturers. New orders are derived using the following formula: NEW ORDERS (current) = SHIPMENTS (current) + UNFILLED ORDERS (current) − UNFILLED ORDERS (prior) *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, sections 131, 182, 193, and 224. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: March 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5215 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Survey of Manufactures AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mendel D. Gayle, Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Rm. 7K055, Washington, DC 20233,
(301)763-4587 or via the Internet at *mendel.d.gayle@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau has conducted the Annual Survey of Manufactures
(ASM)since 1949 to provide key measures of manufacturing activity during intercensal periods. In census years ending in “2” and “7”, the ASM is mailed and collected as part of the Economic Census covering the Manufacturing Sector. This survey is an integral part of the Government's statistical program. The ASM furnishes up-to-date estimates of employment and payroll, hours and wages of production workers, value added by manufacture, cost of materials, value of shipments by product class, inventories, and expenditures for both plant and equipment and structures. The survey provides data for most of these items for each of the 5-digit and selected 6-digit industries as defined in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). It also provides geographic data by state at a more aggregated industry level. The survey also provides valuable information to private companies, research organizations, and trade associations. Industry makes extensive use of the annual figures on product class shipments at the U.S. level in its market analysis, product planning, and investment planning. The ASM data are used to benchmark and reconcile monthly and quarterly data on manufacturing production and inventories. This ASM clearance request will be for the year 2008. There will be no changes to the information requested from respondents. II. Method of Collection The ASM statistics are based on a survey that includes both a mail and nonmail components. Previously, the mail portion of the survey was comprised of a probability sample of approximately 53,000 manufacturing establishments from a frame of approximately 225,000 establishments. These 225,000 establishments were all manufacturing establishments of multiunit companies (companies with operations at more than one location) and all single-location manufacturing companies that were mailed in the 2002 Census of Manufacturing. The nonmail component was comprised of the remaining small single-location companies; approximately 155,000 companies. No data has been collected from companies in the nonmail component. Rather, data has been directly obtained from the administrative records of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Although the nonmail companies account for over half of the population, they have accounted for less than 2 percent of the manufacturing output. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0449. *Form Number:* MA-10000(L), MA-10000(S). *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; State or local governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 3.7 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 187,000. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* The estimated cost to the respondents is $5,454,790. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, Sections 182, 224, and 225. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5214 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 070913515-7516-01] Alaska Native Areas
(ANAs)for the 2010 Census—Proposed Criteria and Guidelines AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed program revisions and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is requesting comment on proposed criteria and guidelines for Alaska Native Areas
(ANAs)for the 2010 Census. Criteria are those rules and conditions that must be met when defining a geographic entity; guidelines are procedures and measures suggested by the Census Bureau to enhance the utility of statistical geographic areas for presentation and analysis of statistical data. ANAs are geographic entities within the State of Alaska defined for the collection, tabulation, and presentation of decennial census data and will be used for the 2010 Census. ANAs also will be used to tabulate and present period estimates from the American Community Survey
(ACS)after 2010 and potentially other Census Bureau surveys. ANAs consist of two types of unique geographic entities: Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANRCs) and Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs) 1 . At this time, the Census Bureau does not propose any changes to the process for naming and delineating boundaries of ANRCs as used in Census 2000. The Census Bureau proposes to revise the criteria and guidelines for eligibility, location, delineation, and naming of ANVSAs to ensure more consistent and comparable ANVSAs and more meaningful, relevant, and reliable statistical data for Alaska Natives and their ANAs. This Notice also contains definitions of key terms used in the ANVSA criteria and guidelines for the 2010 Census. 1 For Census Bureau purposes, the Annette Island Reserve in Alaska is considered an American Indian area (AIA), more specifically an American Indian reservation (AIR), not an ANA. The Census Bureau will publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** that proposes criteria and guidelines for American Indian Areas
(AIAs)for the 2010 Census. After the final ANA criteria and guidelines for the 2010 Census are published in the **Federal Register** , the Census Bureau will offer designated tribal governments or associations an opportunity through the Tribal Statistical Areas Program
(TSAP)to review and, if necessary, suggest updates to the boundaries and names of their ANAs. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please direct all written comments on this proposed program to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H001, Mail Stop 0100, Washington, DC 20233-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information on these proposed program criteria and guidelines should be directed to Mr. Michael Ratcliffe, Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, via e-mail at *geo.tsap.list@census.gov* or telephone at 301-763-3056. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Title 13 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), section 141(a) (2000), the Secretary of Commerce, as delegated to the Census Bureau, undertakes the decennial census every ten years “in such form and content as he may determine.” This language gives wide discretion to the Census Bureau in taking the census. The Census Bureau portrays the boundaries of both legal and statistical geographic entities for the purpose of collecting, tabulating, and presenting meaningful, relevant, and reliable statistical data from the decennial census, the ACS, and potentially other censuses and surveys. The Census Bureau attempts to develop objective criteria and guidelines to establish geographic entities that meet this purpose. The Census Bureau is committed to delineating geographic entity boundaries in partnership with tribal, state, and local officials using criteria and guidelines developed in an open process. It is the responsibility of the Census Bureau to ensure that geographic entity criteria and guidelines achieve the goal of providing meaningful, relevant, and reliable statistical data. While aware that there are nonstatistical uses of ANAs and the data tabulated for them, the Census Bureau will not modify ANA boundaries or attributes specifically to meet the requirements of any of these nonstatistical program uses, including any attempt to meet the specific program requirements of other government agencies. Further, changes made to a geographic entity to meet the requirements of a specific nonstatistical program may have detrimental effects on uses of the same geographic entity for other nonstatistical programs. In addition, the Census Bureau makes no attempt to specifically link the establishment of statistical geographic entities to federal, tribal, or state laws. The development of the ANAs has been an evolutionary process in which the Census Bureau has worked with various data users to develop geographic entities that both aid in census enumeration and tabulation activities and are meaningful for Alaska Natives, 2 their governments, associations working with Alaska Natives, and the federal and state agencies administering tribal programs benefiting Alaska Natives. 2 The term Alaska Native is used throughout this document, but refers to anyone who a) self-identifies as an American Indian and/or an Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races, and b) resides in Alaska. If using race data from Census 2000 rather than some other data source, use data for “American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races” to determine if an ANVSA meets the proposed delineation criteria and guidelines. ANRCs are corporate entities organized to conduct both for-profit and non-profit affairs of Alaska Natives in accordance with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (as amended) (43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (2000)). ANRCs are geographic entities with legally defined boundaries that subdivide all of Alaska into twelve regions, except for the area within the Annette Island Reserve (an AIR under the governmental authority of the Metlakatla Indian Community). A thirteenth non-geographic ANRC represents Alaska Natives who do not belong to one of the other twelve ANRCs; the Census Bureau does not tabulate or present data for this thirteenth ANRC. The twelve geographic ANRCs are what the Census Bureau terms “legal geographic entities.” ANVSAs are statistical geographic entities representing the residences, permanent and/or seasonal, for Alaska Natives who are members of or receive governmental services from the defining ANV, and that are located within the region and vicinity of the ANV's historic and/or traditional location. ANVSAs are intended to represent the relatively densely settled portion of each ANV and should include only an area where Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV, represent a substantial proportion of the population during at least one season of the year. ANVSAs also should not contain large areas that are primarily unpopulated or that do not include concentrations of Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau proposes changes to the ANVSA criteria and guidelines. These proposed changes are discussed more fully below. I. History of Alaska Native Areas in the Decennial Census Prior to the 1980 Census, the Census Bureau had no program specifically designed to recognize or tabulate data for ANAs. Data were published for most of the ANVs as either incorporated places or “unincorporated places” (referred to as census designated places
(CDPs)in later censuses). Congress used data tabulated from the 1970 Census for these places, in conjunction with other information, to determine if they qualified as a “Native village” or a “Native group” in accordance with the ANCSA. Upon enactment of the ANCSA, the Census Bureau began to report data specifically for ANAs beginning with the 1980 Census. The types of ANAs included in the 1980 Census were based on recommendations of an ad hoc interagency committee established by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to examine how the federal government could provide improved data for Alaska Natives. In addition to input from OMB, the Census Bureau also consulted directly with Alaska Native tribal governments and associations, as well as Alaska State officials. The Census Bureau used approximate boundaries for the ANRCs to tabulate data from the 1980 Census. Data for ANRCs were not published as part of the standard decennial census tabulations, but were included in a supplementary report. In sparsely populated areas, the ANRC boundaries were generalized to follow visible features and the boundaries of other census geographic entities. For the 1980 Census, the Census Bureau worked with Alaska State officials to identify the names and locations of ANVs recognized in accordance with the ANCSA, and to delineate their boundaries. The boundaries of most ANVs coincided with the boundaries of other census geographic entities, in particular incorporated places and CDPs. In the few remaining ANVs whose boundaries did not coincide with incorporated place or CDP boundaries, the Census Bureau delineated boundaries that corresponded to one or more enumeration districts (similar to the block groups of later censuses). For the 1980 Census, the Census Bureau identified 209 ANVs. After reviewing these data from the 1980 Census, the Census Bureau discovered that the territory encompassing housing units and population associated with an ANV did not necessarily correspond with the territory of an incorporated place or CDP of the same name. In addition, ANV and ANRC officials commented that the ANV boundaries for the 1980 Census were not their historical or traditional boundaries. The ANV boundaries also did not represent the land withdrawals, selections, or conveyances for the Alaska Native Village Corporations (ANVCs) made in accordance with the ANCSA or the lands historically or traditionally used for subsistence activities, including hunting and fishing. In response to these concerns and to emphasize that these points were all valid, the Census Bureau changed the term for these statistical geographic entities from ANVs to ANVSAs to indicate that while they still were based on the historical or traditional *location* of the ANV, they did not necessarily represent the ANV's historical or traditional *boundary* . To improve the accuracy of ANRC boundaries for the 1990 Census, the Census Bureau transferred the ANRC boundaries from a source map provided by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)onto a series of U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)1:250,000-scale topographic maps, and digitized from there into their geographic database. The Census Bureau implemented a review process, which included the participation of each ANRC, to verify that the ANRC regional boundary was updated correctly. At the request of ANRCs, the Census Bureau worked directly with the ANRC's non-profit associations, whose purpose is to conduct the sociocultural outreach and support for members and other Alaska Natives within their region, in reviewing each regional boundary. ANV government officials and ANRC non-profit association officials were encouraged to delineate ANVSA boundaries for the 1990 Census to facilitate enumeration of Alaska Natives, especially in remote Alaska. To meet the need for suitable boundaries for use in collecting, tabulating, and presenting data for ANV housing and population by aiding in the correct allocation of residences and thus population, ANVSA boundaries were required to follow physical features that would likely be visible to census enumerators, such as roads, trails, shorelines, rivers, streams, and ridgelines, or locally known boundaries of other legal geographic entities, such as boroughs, 3 ANRCs, etc. For the 1990 Census, the Census Bureau identified 217 ANVSAs. 3 For Census Bureau purposes, boroughs in Alaska are the equivalent of counties in other states. For purposes of this notice, the term borough includes the legal designation in Alaska of “cities and boroughs” and “municipalities”, as well as “census areas”. Census areas are comparable to and the equivalent to boroughs for collecting, tabulating, and presenting Census Bureau data. They were created cooperatively by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau to subdivide the large portion of Alaska not within an organized borough into geographic entities more comparable with the organized boroughs. There were no changes to the types of ANAs identified for Census 2000. Similar to the 1990 Census, ANRC boundaries were reviewed by officials of the ANRC non-profit associations. A few small boundary corrections were made for some of the ANRCs. The new development seen in the Census 2000 was the introduction of tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs) in Alaska. TDSAs had existed in some of the forty-eight conterminous states for the 1990 Census, but they had purposely been excluded from Alaska because ANVSAs were thought to cover all the ANVs in Alaska. Some data users stated that there was a difference between those ANVs that participated in the ANCSA and those that did not, but were recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA)as tribes and eligible to receive services from the BIA. In an attempt to remedy this, the Census Bureau introduced TDSAs in Alaska. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau identified 205 ANVSAs and 2 TDSAs in Alaska. Fewer ANVSAs were delineated for Census 2000 primarily because some of the ANVs identified in previous censuses were not recognized in accordance with the ANCSA or recognized by the BIA. II. Proposed Alaska Native Areas for the 2010 Census A. Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANRCs) The Census Bureau is not proposing any changes to the process for delineating the ANRC boundaries for the 2010 Census. The boundaries used by the Census Bureau for the ANRCs represent their regional boundaries established in accordance with the ANCSA. These boundaries do not take into consideration land withdrawals, selections, or conveyances under the ANCSA, nor any form of land ownership. The boundaries for the ANRCs will be included in the materials for the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). Each ANRC's boundary will be reviewed, especially in relation to the boundaries of the Public Land Survey System
(PLSS)townships and sections, to confirm that it is the correct legal boundary for that region as developed under the ANCSA. Each ANRC will also be reviewed to determine if the correct ANVSAs are depicted within its regional boundary. At the request of the ANRCs, the Census Bureau will continue to work with representatives of the twelve ANRC non-profit associations to review their regional boundaries and to ensure that the name for each region continues to closely match the name of the for-profit ANRC for that region ( *see Table 1* ). Table 1.—ANRC For-Profit Corporations and Non-Profit Associations ANRC name For-Profit Alaska Native Regional Corporation Non-Profit Alaska Native Regional Association 1. Ahtna Ahtna, Incorporated Copper River Native Association. 2. Aleut The Aleut Corporation Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Association. 3. Arctic Slope Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arctic Slope Native Association. 4. Bering Straits Bering Straits Native Corporation Kawerak, Incorporated. 5. Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Native Corporation Bristol Bay Native Association. 6. Calista Calista Corporation Association of Village Council Presidents. 7. Chugach Chugach Alaska Corporation Chugachmiut, Incorporated. 8. Cook Inlet Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated Cook Inlet Tribal Council. 9. Doyon Doyon, Limited Tanana Chiefs Conference. 10. Koniag Koniag, Incorporated Kodiak Area Native Association. 11. NANA NANA Regional Corporation Maniilaq Association. 12. Sealaska Sealaska Corporation Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes. B. Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSAs) The goal for the 2010 Census is to improve the delineation of ANVSA boundaries to result in more consistent and comparable ANVSAs and more meaningful, relevant, and reliable statistical data for Alaska Natives and their ANVs. The majority of ANVSAs from Census 2000 meet this goal. No new types of ANAs are proposed for the 2010 Census. ANVSAs are statistical geographic entities representing the residences, permanent and/or seasonal, for Alaska Natives who are members of or receiving governmental services from the defining ANV located within the region and vicinity of the ANV's historic and/or traditional location. ANVSAs are intended to represent the relatively densely settled portion of each ANV and should include only areas where Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV, represent a significant proportion of the population during at least one season of the year. ANVSAs also should not contain large areas that are primarily unpopulated or do not include concentrations of Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV. The delineation of ANVSAs is not meant to necessarily depict land ownership, including any land withdrawals, selections, or conveyances for the ANVCs, nor to represent all of the area over which an ANV has any form of governmental authority or jurisdiction, nor to represent all of the traditional or historical areas associated with the ANV, including areas used for subsistence activities. Representation of ANVSA boundaries in Census Bureau products is solely for the purpose of data collection, tabulation, and presentation and does not convey or confer any rights to land ownership, governmental authority, or jurisdictional status. Although ANVSAs represent relatively densely settled concentrations of Alaska Natives, and therefore are similar to places, there are some key differences. The two place-level geographic entities for which the Census Bureau publishes data are incorporated places (cities in Alaska) and census designated places (CDPs). Incorporated places are governmental entities sanctioned by the State of Alaska to perform general purpose functions and whose boundaries are defined without specifically considering ANV members or other Alaska Natives. CDPs are unincorporated places delineated by State and borough officials in Alaska, and are intended to encompass all people at a given location, including ANV members. Incorporated places and CDPs are mutually exclusive of each other because, by definition, a CDP represents a named, unincorporated area. Because ANVSAs are defined specifically to represent concentrations of Alaska Natives, they are not constrained by other place-level geographic entities; that is, ANVSAs may overlap incorporated places and CDPs. An ANVSA may be delineated to encompass only a part of an incorporated place and/or a CDP; it may encompass area within multiple incorporated places or CDPs; or it may cover an area that has neither incorporated places nor CDPs. In addition, ANVSAs are used in census data collection activities and are included in the specific American Indian/Alaska Native geographic hierarchy for tabulating and presenting data from the 2010 Census; incorporated places and CDPs do not appear in the American Indian/Alaska Native geographic hierarchy. Incorporated places and CDPs do not clearly identify geographic entities that are specific to Alaska Natives, and therefore data for incorporated places and CDPs likely will reflect the characteristics of both Alaska Native and non-Native populations. ANVSAs will be used to tabulate and present data from both the 2010 Census and the ACS. Defining officials should take into consideration that ACS period estimates of demographic characteristics for geographic entities that are small in population size will be subject to higher variances than comparable estimates for geographic entities with larger populations. Thus, if an ANVSA contains only a small number of housing units occupied by Alaska Natives during at least one season of the year, then the quality, reliability, and availability of the sample data may vary from year to year. In addition, the Census Bureau's disclosure avoidance and data quality assurance methodologies may have the effect of restricting the availability and amount of data for geographic entities with small populations. On the other hand, if an ANVSA encompasses a large total population that is not representative of the ANV's membership or service population, then the data for the Alaska Native population may be subsumed, or “masked,” by the characteristics of the overall population. The more closely an ANVSA's boundary relates to the distribution of ANV members and Alaska Natives receiving governmental services from the ANV, and does not include large numbers of people and households not affiliated with the ANV, the more likely that data presented for the ANVSA will reflect the characteristics of the ANV population. Therefore, when delineating ANVSAs, it is important to strike an appropriate balance, avoiding a definition that is too small to obtain meaningful sample data, and one that is so large that data for the Alaska Native population are masked by the presence of a high percentage of non-Native households. The Census Bureau has taken these concerns into consideration when developing the criteria and guidelines proposed below. Officials designated to delineate boundaries also should consider that tribal affiliation data, including ANV affiliation, as collected by the Census Bureau, generally are not released for geographic entities that are small in population size, including ANVSAs, due to data disclosure concerns. If an ANVSA is defined in accordance with the program criteria and guidelines, the ANVSA data may provide a surrogate for tribal affiliation data for a specific, small geographic area, while tribal affiliation data are available for larger geographic entities such as the whole State of Alaska. Although eligible, an ANV may elect not to delineate an ANVSA if it will not provide meaningful, relevant, or reliable statistical data. For example, the data may not be meaningful, relevant, or reliable because the member population now resides in other places or has been completely subsumed by non-member and/or non-Native populations. However, these ANVs may still be able to receive meaningful, relevant, and reliable statistical data for their ANV membership at higher levels of census geography, especially through the characteristic of tribal affiliation, but a specific geographic solution to their data issues, like an ANVSA, may not be feasible. 1. Proposed ANVSA Criteria and Guidelines for the 2010 Census The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and guidelines for the 2010 Census. Criteria are those rules and conditions that must be met when defining a geographic entity; guidelines are procedures and measures suggested by the Census Bureau to enhance the utility of statistical geographic areas for presentation and analysis of statistical data. a. Proposed ANVSA Eligibility Criteria An ANV would be eligible to delineate an ANVSA for the 2010 Census if the ANV is: i. Recognized by and eligible to receive services from the BIA, or ii. Recognized in accordance with the ANCSA as either a Native village, or Native group. BIA recognition (criterion i. above) is determined by inclusion of an ANV on the BIA's list of recognized tribes 4 or by addenda to the list as published by the BIA. ANCSA recognition (criterion ii. above) is determined by inclusion of an ANV on the BLM's list of ANCSA recognized Native villages and Native groups; the BLM's list of those ANVs recognized in accordance with the ANCSA is available from the BLM's Alaska State Office. 4 Published regularly in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791 (1994); 25 U.S.C. 479a-1 (2000)). As of the publication of this Notice, the list was last published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13648-13652). Table 2 provides a list of the 237 ANVs that meet these proposed criteria and guidelines and that would be eligible to delineate an ANVSA for the 2010 Census. Table 2 also lists the BIA recognized name for each ANV 5 and indicates whether each is a Native village or Native group in accordance with the ANCSA. Any new ANV recognized by the BIA or in accordance with the ANCSA as of January 1, 2010 (the reference date for geographic entity boundaries for the 2010 Census), also will be eligible to delineate an ANVSA. 5 From the **Federal Register** notice published Thursday, March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13648-13652). The following three tribes in Alaska recognized by the BIA would not be eligible to be represented by ANVSAs because they are not ANVs, are large regional tribal associations, or have a legally defined American Indian reservation: • Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes • Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope • Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve All ANVs that were eligible to delineate TDSAs for Census 2000 would be eligible to delineate ANVSAs for the 2010 Census if the resulting ANVSA meets all the program's criteria. TDSAs would not be delineated in Alaska for the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau will continue to work with representatives of the BIA-recognized ANV to delineate their ANVSA for the 2010 Census. If the ANV is not recognized by the BIA, or if the BIA-recognized ANV government does not respond to the Census Bureau's invitation to participate in the ANVSA program, the Census Bureau will work with the ANCSA-recognized ANVC or Alaska Native Group Corporation (ANGC), as applicable, to delineate their ANVSA. If neither replies to the Census Bureau, the Census Bureau will work with the ANRC non-profit associations in whose region the ANV is located to delineate the ANVSA. If none of the entities referenced above reply to the Census Bureau, time and resources permitting the Census Bureau may delineate an ANVSA for the ANV. b. Proposed ANVSA Location Criteria All eligible ANVs shall be located in areas of historical and traditional significance. These locations are referenced in: • The BIA recognized name for an ANV—e.g., Native Village of Atka; • The former BIA recognized name for an ANV—e.g., Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly the Native Village of Russian Mission); and/or • The BLM ANCSA recognized name for a Native village or Native group—e.g., Buckland or Canyon Village. The latitude and longitude coordinates listed in Table 2 represent the point location of each eligible ANV, as determined by the Census Bureau. Each point location has been verified using the ANRC boundaries, the USGS Geographic Names Information System
(GNIS)point locations, USGS topographic maps, location information from previous censuses, BLM Core Townships, ANCSA 14(c) survey plats, location information from the State of Alaska, and Native allotment boundaries. The latitude and longitude coordinates listed for an ANV provide the starting point for delineation of that ANVSA. Each ANVSA must primarily include land immediately surrounding the corresponding point locations listed in Table 2 for each ANV, but may include additional territory according to the other final program criteria and guidelines. The point location information for each ANV included in Table 2 is used in the specific ANVSA delineation criteria and guidelines listed below. c. Proposed ANVSA Delineation Criteria and Guidelines The Census Bureau has received comments from data users, tribes, and ANV officials over the past twenty or more years regarding the purpose of American Indian/Alaska Native statistical geographic entities, including ANVSAs, and how they should be defined to facilitate tabulation and presentation of meaningful data. In response, the Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and guidelines to help ensure that ANVSAs delineated for the 2010 Census support their intended purpose, provide useful and meaningful data for the ANV they represent, and enhance the ability of data users to make more meaningful comparisons between ANVSAs. When finalized, the proposed criteria must be followed by all officials delineating an ANVSA for the 2010 Census. The guidelines are provided to assist delineating officials in defining an ANVSA. Proposed ANVSA Delineation Criteria i. ANVSAs delineated for the 2010 Census shall not overlap. ii. An ANVSA shall not completely surround the location of another ANV as listed in Table 2. iii. All portions of an ANVSA must be located within fifty miles of the ANV's point location listed in Table 2. iv. An ANVSA shall not include more water area than land area. Large expanses of water area should be included only to maintain contiguity, to provide a generalized version of the shoreline, or if the water area is completely surrounded by land area included in the ANVSA. v. An ANVSA's boundary shall follow visible, physical features, such as rivers, streams, shorelines, roads, trails, and ridgelines. Officials delineating ANVSAs may use nonvisible lines as an ANVSA boundary only if acceptable boundary features are not available. For example, an ANVSA boundary may follow the nonvisible, legally defined boundaries of ANRCs, boroughs, or cities. Proposed ANVSA Delineation Guidelines The following delineation guidelines are suggested good practices to improve the utility of ANVSAs for collecting, tabulating, presenting, and analyzing statistical data for Alaska Native populations. These are not requirements, but rather are suggestions for consideration when delineating ANVSA boundaries. An ANVSA should not extend beyond the regional boundary of the ANRC in which the ANV is located (see Table 2). This helps avoid confusion regarding the relationship between ANRCs, ANVs, and ANVSAs, and helps orient data users working with data for both ANRCs and ANVSAs. An ANVSA should not exceed 325 square miles in area. Based on review of ANVSAs boundaries from previous censuses as well as other information about ANVs and ANVSAs, the Census Bureau suggests this size as sufficient to encompass the Alaska Native population and housing associated with each respective ANVSA, but not so extensive that large amounts of non-Native population and housing are included. Housing units occupied by Alaska Natives, 6 even if seasonal, should constitute the majority of housing units within an ANVSA. In addition, the population within an ANVSA should be majority Alaska Native, and, of that population, the majority should be members of or population served by the delineating ANV. An ANVSA should avoid encompassing or including any portion of a military installation or a large portion of an urbanized area. These guidelines are suggested to help ensure that the data presented for an ANVSA are as meaningful as possible, and avoid including large amounts of non-Alaska Native population and housing units. 6 If using race data from Census 2000 rather than some other data source, use data for “American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races” to determine whether an ANVSA meets the proposed delineation criteria. An ANVSA also should not contain large areas without housing or population. Specifically, an ANVSA should have a housing unit density of at least three housing units per square mile. The Census Bureau suggests this threshold based on review of ANVSA boundaries from previous decades. An ANVSA should be contiguous; that is, an ANVSA should form a single area with all territory located within a continuous boundary. This makes identification of the extent of the ANVSA easier for residents and data users, and also provides for a clearer representation of the ANVSA's boundaries on maps. An ANVSA, however, may be defined with multiple noncontiguous pieces if doing so helps avoid inclusion of population and housing not associated with the ANV. d. Proposed ANVSA Naming Criteria The name for an ANVSA must match the corresponding ANV name in Table 2. If an ANV wishes to use a name that deviates from the corresponding ANV name, the ANV must submit a brief statement describing the reason for the change. Changes to the name of an ANVSA will be considered only if submitted in writing and signed by the highest elected official (Chairperson, Chief, or President) of the ANV. 2. ANVSA Review Process As with all of the Census Bureau's statistical geographic entities, the Census Bureau reserves the right to modify, create, or reject any boundary or attribute as needed to meet the final program criteria or to maintain geographic relationships before the tabulation geography is finalized for the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau will accept an ANVSA only if it meets the final program criteria. Any decision to reject a particular ANVSA delineation will be conveyed to the delineating official in writing. The delineating official may redelineate the ANVSA and re-submit it to the Census Bureau for review. Interested parties will be able to review and comment on delineated ANVSA boundaries and names. If a dispute between two or more parties occurs over the boundary delineated for a specific ANVSA, the Census Bureau encourages the respective parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement that complies with the final program criteria and follows the final program guidelines. There may be instances in which a mutually acceptable boundary for an ANVSA cannot be delineated, or the mutually acceptable boundary does not follow the final program criteria and guidelines. In such instances, the Census Bureau shall give priority to the boundary submitted by the ANV delineating official, in recognition of the government-to-government relationship with the ANV, provided that the delineated ANVSA meets the final program criteria. If a mutually acceptable ANVSA is not delineated in accordance with final program criteria by the program's deadline, the Census Bureau may, independently delineate an ANVSA. III. Definitions of Key Terms and Acronyms Alaska Native—For purposes of this program, Alaska Native refers to anyone who self-identifies as an American Indian and/or an Alaska Native and resides in Alaska. Alaska Native area (ANA)—A geographic entity within the State of Alaska that is defined for the collection and tabulation of decennial census data for Alaska Natives. For the 2010 Census, ANAs include Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANRCs) and Alaska Native Village statistical areas (ANVSAs). Alaska Native Group Corporation (ANGC)—A corporation created in accordance with the ANCSA and organized under the laws of the State of Alaska as a for-profit or non-profit business to hold, invest, manage, and/or distribute lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and on behalf of a Native group. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)—Legislation (Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971); 43 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. (2000)) enacted in 1971 that recognized Native villages and Native groups, and established ANRCs and their regional boundaries. Alaska Native Regional Corporation (ANRC)—A legal geographic entity established under the ANCSA as a “Regional Corporation” to conduct both the for-profit and non-profit affairs of Alaska Natives within a defined region of Alaska. Twelve ANRCs cover the entire State of Alaska except for the area within the Annette Island Reserve (an AIR under the governmental authority of the Metlakatla Indian Community). Alaska Native Urban Corporation (ANUC)—A corporation created in accordance with the ANCSA and organized under the laws of the State of Alaska as a for-profit or non-profit business to hold, invest, manage, and/or distribute lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and on behalf of one of the four Alaska Native urban communities recognized under the ANCSA: Juneau, Kenai, Kodiak, and Sitka. Alaska Native village (ANV)—A local governmental unit in Alaska that constitutes an association, band, clan, community, group, tribe, or village recognized by and eligible to receive services from the BIA and/or in accordance with the ANCSA as a Native village or Native group. Alaska Native Village Corporation (ANVC)—A corporation created in accordance with the ANCSA and organized under the laws of the State of Alaska as a for-profit or non-profit business to hold, invest, manage, and/or distribute lands, property, funds, and assets for or on behalf of a Native village. Alaska Native village statistical area (ANVSA)—A statistical geographic entity that represents the residences, permanent and/or seasonal, for Alaska Natives who are members of or receiving governmental services from the defining ANV that are located within the region and vicinity of the ANV's historic and/or traditional location. ANVSAs are intended to represent the relatively densely settled portion of each ANV and should include only an area where Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV, represent a significant proportion of the population during at least one season of the year. ANVSAs also should not contain large areas that are primarily unpopulated or do not include concentrations of Alaska Natives, especially members of the defining ANV. American Indian reservation (AIR)—A federally recognized American Indian land area with a boundary established by final treaty, statute, Executive Order, and/or court order and over which the tribal government of a federally recognized American Indian tribe has governmental authority. The AIR in Alaska is referred to as a reserve (Annette Island Reserve). ANCSA 14(c) Survey Plat—A map issued by the BLM that depicts the surveyed boundaries for each Native village and its ANVC in accordance with the process set out in Section 14(c) of the ANCSA (See 43 U.S.C. 1613(c) (2000)). Digital versions of the completed plats are available online at *http://ftp.dcbd.dced.state.ak.us/14cPlats/14c-Plats.htm* . BLM Core Township—A PLSS township designated in accordance with the ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. 1641(b) (2000), in which all or part of a Native village was determined to be located. Borough—A legal geographic entity within the State of Alaska. For purposes of this program, the Census Bureau treats boroughs as equivalent to a county in other states for data collection, tabulation, and presentation purposes. In addition, when used generically, this term also includes “cities and boroughs,” “municipalities,” and “census areas” in Alaska. Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS)—A Census Bureau survey of legal geographic entities. In Alaska, BAS includes boroughs, boroughs and cities, municipalities, cities, ANRCs, and federally recognized American Indian reservations. Its purpose is to determine, solely for data collection and tabulation by the Census Bureau, the complete and current inventory and the correct names, legal descriptions, official status, and official boundaries of the legal geographic entities with primary governmental authority over certain lands within the United States as of January 1 of the survey year. The BAS also collects specific information to document the legal actions that established a boundary or imposed a boundary change. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)—The primary agency of the federal government, located within the Department of the Interior, charged with the trust responsibility between the federal government and federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and communities, including BIA recognized ANVs. Census area—A statistical geographic entity that serves as the equivalent of a borough in Alaska and that is delineated cooperatively by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau solely for the purposes of subdividing that portion of Alaska that is not within an organized borough to allow more efficient census data collection and more useful census data tabulations. Census designated place (CDP)—A statistical geographic entity with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial structures that is clearly identifiable by a single name, but is not within an incorporated place (i.e., a city in Alaska). CDPs are intended to be the statistical counterparts of incorporated places for distinct unincorporated communities. City—A legal designation for incorporated places. Contiguous—A description of a geographic entity having an uninterrupted outer boundary such that it forms a single, connected piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form separate, disconnected pieces. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS)—The GNIS is the federal standard for geographic nomenclature. The USGS developed the GNIS for the U.S. Board on Geographic Names as the official repository of domestic geographic names data; the official vehicle for geographic names use by all departments of the federal government; and the source for applying geographic names to federal electronic and printed products. The GNIS is available online at *http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/index.html.* Incorporated place—A governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, to provide governmental services for a concentration of people within a legally defined boundary. Legal geographic entity—A geographically defined governmental, administrative, or corporate entity whose origin, boundary, name, and description result from charters, laws, treaties, or other governmental action. Examples are the United States, states and statistically equivalent entities, counties and statistically equivalent entities, minor civil divisions, incorporated places, congressional districts, American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands, school districts, and ANRCs. The legal geographic entities that will be recognized for the 2010 Census are those in existence on January 1, 2010. Native allotment—Land in Alaska allotted to Alaska Native adults primarily in accordance with the Native Allotment Act of 1906 (Ch. 2469, 34 Stat. 197 (1906)). A Native allotment can be up to 160 acres in area (.25 of a square mile), and its title is held in restricted fee status ( *see “Restricted fee land”* ). Native allotments were provided from the public lands at large in Alaska and required each Alaska Native applicant to demonstrate use and occupancy of the allotment for at least a five-year period. Although many Native allotments are still used for subsistent activities, most do not include housing units. Native group (NG)—Any tribe, band, clan, group, community, village, or village association of Alaska Natives designated by the Secretary of the Interior composed of less than twenty-five, but more than three, Alaska Natives, who also comprised a majority of the residents of a locality at the time of the 1970 Census. Native village (NV)—Any tribe, band, clan, group, community, village, or village association of Alaska Natives listed in Sections 11 and 16 of the ANCSA (See 43 U.S.C. 1610 and 1615 (2000)) or which the Secretary of the Interior determines was composed of twenty-five or more Alaska Natives and who also comprised a majority of the residents of a locality at the time of the 1970 Census. Nonvisible feature—A map feature that is not visible such as a city, borough, or ANRC boundary through space, a property line, or line-of-sight extension of a road. Pub. L.—Public Law Public Land Survey System (PLSS)—A rectangular system of surveys used to subdivide and describe land in the United States. The PLSS typically divides land into six-mile-square townships. These townships are subdivided into 36 one-mile-square sections. Sections can be further subdivided into quarter sections, quarter-quarter sections, or irregular government lots. The PLSS consists of a series of separate surveys. Most PLSS surveys begin at an initial point, and townships are surveyed north, south, east, and west from that point. The north-south line that runs through the initial point is a true meridian and is called the Principal Meridian. There are five Principal Meridians in Alaska—Copper River, Fairbanks, Kateel, Seward, and Umiat—that should be used when describing a particular township or section. For more information on the PLSS see *http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/boundaries/a_plss.html.* Regional Corporation—See Alaska Native Regional Corporation
(ANRC)Restricted fee land—A land area for which an individual American Indian or a tribe holds fee simple title subject to limitations or restrictions against alienation or encumbrances as set forth in the title and/or by operation of law. Restricted fee lands may be located on or off a federally recognized reservation. Native allotments in Alaska are one type of restricted fee land. The Census Bureau does not identify restricted fee lands as a specific geographic category. Section—A PLSS region approximately one mile square that is a division of a PLSS township. Statistical Area—See statistical Geographic Entity Statistical geographic entity—A geographic entity specifically defined for the collection and/or tabulation of statistical data from the Census Bureau. Statistical entities are not established by law and their designation by the Census Bureau neither conveys nor confers legal ownership, entitlement, jurisdiction, or governmental authority. Tribal statistical geographic entities, also called statistical areas, include ANVSAs and TDSAs, among others. Township—A PLSS region approximately six miles square that contains thirty-six approximately one mile square PLSS sections. Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA)—A statistical geographic entity identified and delineated for the Census Bureau by a federally recognized American Indian tribe that does not currently have a reservation and/or off-reservation trust land. A TDSA is intended to be comparable to the AIRs within the same state or region, especially those for tribes that are of similar size. A TDSA encompasses a compact and contiguous area that contains a concentration of individuals who identify with the delineating federally recognized American Indian tribe and within which there is structured and organized tribal activity. Although two TDSAs were delineated within Alaska for Census 2000, TDSAs will not be delineated within Alaska for the 2010 Census. All ANVs eligible to delineate TDSAs within Alaska for Census 2000 are eligible to delineate an ANVSA within Alaska for the 2010 Census. Tribal Statistical Areas Program (TSAP)—The Census Bureau's program for the 2010 Census, through which updates to American Indian and Alaska Native statistical geographic entities will be obtained. Visible feature—A map feature that can be seen on the ground such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. Nonstandard visible feature—A subset of visible features that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act This program notice does not represent a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 (2000). Dated: March 11, 2008. Steve H. Murdock, Director, Bureau of the Census. Table 2.—Eligible ANVs ANV name ANRC ANCSA type 7 BIA recognized name 8 Longitude Latitude 1. Afogn/ak Koniag NV n/ative Village of Afogn/ak −152.7652 58.0221 2. Akhiok Koniag NV n/ative Village of Akhiok −154.1703 56.9456 3. Akiachak Calista NV Akiachak n/ative Community −161.4276 60.9026 4. Akiak Calista NV Akiak n/ative Community −161.2222 60.9119 5. Akutan Aleut NV n/ative Village of Akutan −165.7809 54.1384 6. Alakanuk Calista NV Village of Alakanuk −164.6612 62.6797 7. Alatn/a Doyon NV Alatn/a Village −152.7563 66.5636 8. Alekn/agik Bristol Bay NV n/ative Village of Alekn/agik −158.6189 59.2789 9. Alexander Creek Cook Inlet NG n/a −150.5999 61.4218 10. Algaaciq Calista NV Algaaciq n/ative Village −163.1769 62.0534 11. Allakaket Doyon NV Allakaket Village −152.6506 66.5597 12. Ambler n/an/a NV n/ative Village of Ambler −157.8671 67.0874 13. An/aktuvuk Pass Arctic Slope NV Village of Anaktuvuk Pass −151.7286 68.1480 14. Andreafsky Calista NV Yupiit of Andreafski −163.1934 62.0476 15. Angoon Sealaska NV Angoon Community Association −134.5824 57.4975 16. Aniak Calista NV Village of Aniak −159.5487 61.5750 17. Anvik Doyon NV Anvik Village −160.1965 62.6515 18. Arctic Village Doyon NV Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Arctic Village) −145.5283 68.1243 19. Asa'carsarmiut Calista NV Asa'carsarmiut Tribe −163.7279 62.0906 20. Atka Aleut NV Native Village of Atka −174.2095 52.2106 21. Atmautluak Calista NV Village of Atmautluak −162.2795 60.8591 22. Atqasuk Arctic Slope NV Atqasuk Village −157.4135 70.4736 23. Ayakulik Koniag NV n/a −154.5072 57.1949 24. Barrow Arctic Slope NV Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government −156.7811 71.2909 25. Beaver Doyon NV Beaver Village −147.4026 66.3628 26. Belkofski Aleut NV Native Village of Belkofski −162.0423 55.0865 27. Bill Moore's Calista NV Village of Bill Moore's Slough −163.7767 62.9449 28. Birch Creek Doyon NV Birch Creek Tribe −145.8190 66.2590 29. Brevig Mission Bering Straits NV Native Village of Brevig Mission −166.4885 65.3350 30. Buckland NANA NV Native Village of Buckland −161.1246 65.9767 31. Cantwell Ahtna NV Native Village of Cantwell −148.9105 63.3921 32. Canyon Village Doyon NG n/a −142.0878 67.1548 33. Caswell Cook Inlet NG n/a −149.9479 62.0047 34. Chalkyitsik Doyon NV Chalkyitsik Village −143.7286 66.6534 35. Cheesh-Na Ahtna NV Cheesh-Na Tribe −144.6542 62.5718 36. Chefornak Calista NV Village of Chefornak −164.2723 60.1538 37. Chenega Chugach NV Native Village of Chanega −148.0124 60.0664 38. Chevak Calista NV Chevak Native Village −165.5807 61.5285 39. Chickaloon Cook Inlet NV Chickaloon Native Village −148.4916 61.8002 40. Chignik Bay Bristol Bay NV Chignik Bay Tribal Council −158.4129 56.3037 41. Chignik Lagoon Bristol Bay NV Native Village of Chignik Lagoon −158.5302 56.3084 42. Chignik Lake Bristol Bay NV Chignik Lake Village −158.7522 56.2496 43. Chilkat Sealaska NV Chilkat Indian Village −135.8964 59.3997 44. Chilkoot Sealaska *n/a* Chilkoot Indian Association −135.4460 59.2240 45. Chinik Bering Straits NV Chinik Eskimo Community −163.0287 64.5443 46. Chitina Ahtna NV Native Village of Chitina −144.4412 61.5240 47. Chuathbaluk Calista NV Native Village of Chuathbaluk −159.2481 61.5774 48. Chulloonawick Calista NV Chulloonawick Native Village −164.1628 62.9504 49. Circle Doyon NV Circle Native Community −144.0723 65.8261 50. Clark's Point Bristol Bay NV Village of Clarks Point −158.5471 58.8330 51. Council Bering Straits NV Native Village of Council −163.6764 64.8950 52. Craig Sealaska NV Craig Community Association −133.1253 55.4870 53. Crooked Creek Calista NV Village of Crooked Creek −158.1124 61.8720 54. Curyung 9 Bristol Bay NV Curyung Tribal Council −158.4670 59.0487 55. Deering NANA NV Native Village of Deering −162.7283 66.0780 56. Dot Lake Doyon NV Village of Dot Lake −144.0354 63.6503 57. Douglas Sealaska UC Douglas Indian Association −134.3992 58.2781 58. Eagle Doyon NV Native Village of Eagle −141.1113 64.7808 59. Eek Calista NV Native Village of Eek −162.0247 60.2170 60. Egegik Bristol Bay NV Egegik Village −157.3536 58.2173 61. Eklutna Cook Inlet NV Eklutna Native Village −149.3613 61.4606 62. Ekuk 9 Bristol Bay NV Native Village of Ekuk −158.5534 58.8035 63. Ekwok Bristol Bay NV Ekwok Village −157.4866 59.3519 64. Elim Bering Straits NV Native Village of Elim −162.2576 64.6165 65. Emmonak Calista NV Emmonak Village −164.5454 62.7787 66. Evansville Doyon NV Evansville Village −151.5100 66.9272 67. Eyak Chugach NV Native Village of Eyak −145.6351 60.5263 68. False Pass Aleut NV Native Village of False Pass −163.4121 54.8520 69. Fort Yukon Doyon NV Native Village of Fort Yukon −145.2497 66.5627 70. Gakona Ahtna NV Native Village of Gakona −145.3119 62.3004 71. Galena Doyon NV Galena Village −156.8852 64.7427 72. Gambell Bering Straits NV Native Village of Gambell −171.7022 63.7621 73. Georgetown Calista NV Native Village of Georgetown −157.6727 61.8979 74. Gold Creek Cook Inlet NG n/a −149.6939 62.7567 75. Goodnews Bay Calista NV Native Village of Goodnews Bay −161.5864 59.1234 76. Grayling Doyon NV Organized Village of Grayling −160.0689 62.9061 77. Gulkana Ahtna NV Gulkana Village −145.3656 62.2634 78. Hamilton Calista NV Native Village of Hamilton −163.8598 62.8896 79. Healy Lake Doyon NV Healy Lake Village −144.6998 63.9872 80. Holy Cross Doyon NV Holy Cross Village −159.7738 62.1985 81. Hoonah Sealaska NV Hoonah Indian Association −135.4346 58.1100 82. Hooper Bay Calista NV Native Village of Hooper Bay −166.0978 61.5294 83. Hughes Doyon NV Hughes Village −154.2557 66.0455 84. Huslia Doyon NV Huslia Village −156.3892 65.7026 85. Hydaburg Sealaska NV Hydaburg Cooperative Association −132.8201 55.2067 86. Igiugig Bristol Bay NV Igiugig Village −155.8927 59.3266 87. Iliamna Bristol Bay NV Village of Iliamna −154.9111 59.7568 88. Inalik Bering Straits NV Native Village of Diomede −168.9370 65.7547 89. Iqurmuit Calista NV Iqurmuit Traditional Council −161.3287 61.7854 90. Ivanof Bay Bristol Bay NV Ivanoff Bay Village −159.4836 55.9033 91. Kaguyak Koniag NV Kaguyak Village −153.7955 56.8689 92. Kake Sealaska NV Organized Village of Kake −133.9451 56.9775 93. Kaktovik Arctic Slope NV Kaktovik Village −143.6113 70.1324 94. Kalskag Calista NV Village of Kalskag −160.3215 61.5400 95. Kaltag Doyon NV Village of Kaltag −158.7302 64.3259 96. Kanatak Koniag 10 *n/a* Native Village of Kanatak −156.0432 57.5728 97. Karluk Koniag NV Native Village of Karluk −154.4393 57.5572 98. Kasaan Sealaska NV Organized Village of Kasaan −132.4017 55.5419 99. Kasigluk Calista NV Kasigluk Traditional Elders Council −162.5139 60.8873 100. Kenai Cook Inlet UC Kenaitze Indian Tribe −151.2614 60.5521 101. Ketchikan Sealaska *n/a* Ketchikan Indian Corporation −131.6445 55.3421 102. Kiana NANA NV Native Village of Kiana −160.4309 66.9717 103. King Cove Aleut NV Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove −162.3029 55.0629 104. King Salmon Bristol Bay *n/a* King Salmon Tribe −156.7312 58.7090 105. Kipnuk Calista NV Native Village of Kipnuk −164.0376 59.9343 106. Kivalina NANA NV Native Village of Kivalina −164.5386 67.7295 107. Klawock Sealaska NV Klawock Cooperative Association −133.0948 55.5526 108. Kluti Kaah Ahtna NV Native Village of Kluti Kaah −145.3297 61.9770 109. Knik Cook Inlet NV Knik Tribe −149.6822 61.4947 110. Knugank Bristol Bay NG n/a −158.7991 58.4225 111. Kobuk NANA NV Native Village of Kobuk −156.8888 66.9252 112. Kodiak Koniag UC Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak −152.3885 57.8009 113. Kokhanok Bristol Bay NV Kokhanok Village −154.7682 59.4374 114. Kongiganak Calista NV Native Village of Kongiganak −162.8951 59.9533 115. Kotlik Calista NV Village of Kotlik −163.5500 63.0325 116. Kotzebue NANA NV Native Village of Kotzebue −162.5874 66.8988 117. Koyuk Bering Straits NV Native Village of Koyuk −161.1628 64.9312 118. Koyukuk Doyon NV Koyukuk Native Village −157.7031 64.8818 119. Kwethluk Calista NV Organized Village of Kwethluk −161.4381 60.8101 120. Kwigillingok Calista NV Native Village of Kwigillingok −163.1647 59.8694 121. Kwinhagak Calista NV Native Village of Kwinhagak −161.9055 59.7525 122. Lake Minchumina Doyon NG n/a −152.3122 63.8830 123. Larsen Bay Koniag NV Native Village of Larsen Bay −153.9874 57.5351 124. Lesnoi Koniag NV Lesnoi Village −152.3351 57.7779 125. Levelock Bristol Bay NV Levelock Village −156.8613 59.1117 126. Lime Village Calista NV Lime Village −155.4378 61.3540 127. Lower Kalskag Calista NV Village of Lower Kalskag −160.3642 61.5125 128. Manley Hot Springs Doyon NV Manley Hot Springs Village −150.6107 65.0088 129. Manokotak Bristol Bay NV Manokotak Village −158.9981 58.9724 130. Marshall Calista NV Native Village of Marshall −162.0878 61.8794 131. Mary's Igloo Bering Straits NV Native Village of Mary's Igloo −165.0678 65.1489 132. McGrath Doyon NV McGrath Native Village −155.5759 62.9488 133. Mekoryuk Calista NV Native Village of Mekoryuk −166.1943 60.3892 134. Mentasta Ahtna NV Mentasta Traditional Council −143.7700 62.9330 135. Minto Doyon NV Native Village of Minto −149.3497 65.1504 136. Montana Creek Cook Inlet NG n/a −150.0650 62.0686 137. Nagamut Calista NG n/a −157.6744 61.0194 138. Naknek Bristol Bay NV Naknek Native Village −156.9869 58.7330 139. Nanwalek Chugach NV Native Village of Nanwalek −151.9119 59.3521 140. Napaimute Calista NV Native Village of Napaimute −158.6739 61.5414 141. Napakiak Calista NV Native Village of Napakiak −161.9790 60.6906 142. Napaskiak Calista NV Native Village of Napaskiak −161.7634 60.7060 143. Nelson Lagoon Aleut NV Native Village of Nelson Lagoon −161.2070 56.0006 144. Nenana Doyon NV Nenana Native Association −149.0875 64.5610 145. New Koliganek Bristol Bay NV New Koliganek Village Council −157.2844 59.7286 146. New Stuyahok Bristol Bay NV New Stuyahok Village −157.3208 59.4518 147. Newhalen Bristol Bay NV Newhalen Village −154.8924 59.7238 148. Newtok Calista NV Newtok Village −164.6307 60.9377 149. Nightmute Calista NV Native Village of Nightmute −164.7216 60.4788 150. Nikolai Doyon NV Nikolai Village −154.3814 63.0128 151. Nikolski Aleut NV Native Village of Nikolski −168.8615 52.9401 152. Ninilchik Cook Inlet NV Ninilchik Village −151.6936 60.0300 153. Noatak NANA NV Native Village of Noatak −162.9676 67.5716 154. Nome Bering Straits NV Nome Eskimo Community −165.3940 64.4999 155. Nondalton Bristol Bay NV Nondalton Village −154.8564 59.9634 156. Noorvik NANA NV Noorvik Native Community −161.0440 66.8345 157. Northway Doyon NV Northway Village −141.9517 62.9822 158. Nuiqsut Arctic Slope NV Native Village of Nuiqsut −151.0000 70.2166 159. Nulato Doyon NV Nulato Village −158.1066 64.7246 160. Nunakauyarmiut Calista NV Nunakauyarmiut Tribe −165.1037 60.5338 161. Nunam Iqua Calista NV Native Village of Nunam Iqua −164.8525 62.5299 162. Nunapitchuk Calista NV Native Village of Nunapitchuk −162.4522 60.8968 163. Ohogamiut Calista NV Village of Ohogamiut −161.8648 61.5704 164. Old Harbor Koniag NV Village of Old Harbor −153.3031 57.2104 165. Orutsararmuit Calista NV Orutsararmuit Native Village −161.7730 60.7968 166. Oscarville Calista NV Oscarville Traditional Village −161.7758 60.7236 167. Ouzinkie Koniag NV Native Village of Ouzinkie −152.5002 57.9237 168. Paimiut Calista NV Native Village of Paimiut −165.8201 61.7030 169. Pauloff Harbor Aleut NV Pauloff Harbor Village −162.7071 54.4577 170. Pedro Bay Bristol Bay NV Pedro Bay Village −154.1484 59.7768 171. Perryville Bristol Bay NV Native Village of Perryville −159.1633 55.9140 172. Petersburg Sealaska n/a Petersburg Indian Association −132.9512 56.8113 173. Pilot Point Bristol Bay NV Native Village of Pilot Point −157.5753 57.5545 174. Pilot Station Calista NV Pilot Station Traditional Village −162.8825 61.9375 175. Pitkas Point Calista NV Native Village of Pitka's Point −163.2826 62.0345 176. Platinum Calista NV Platinum Traditional Village −161.8237 59.0095 177. Point Hope Arctic Slope NV Native Village of Point Hope −166.7693 68.3486 178. Point Lay Arctic Slope NV Native Village of Point Lay −163.0082 69.7427 179. Point Possession Cook Inlet NG n/a −150.4110 61.0308 180. Port Alsworth Cook Inlet 11 NG n/a −154.3223 60.2016 181. Port Graham Chugach NV Native Village of Port Graham −151.8353 59.3481 182. Port Heiden Bristol Bay NV Native Village of Port Heiden −158.6250 56.9326 183. Port Lions Koniag NV Native Village of Port Lions −152.8894 57.8659 184. Portage Creek 9 Bristol Bay NV Portage Creek Village −157.7174 58.9073 185. Rampart Doyon NV Rampart Village −150.1453 65.5094 186. Red Devil Calista NV Village of Red Devil −157.3387 61.7834 187. Ruby Doyon NV Native Village of Ruby −155.4729 64.7371 188. Saint George Aleut NV Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands (Saint George Island) −169.5519 56.6044 189. Saint Michael Bering Straits NV Native Village of Saint Michael −162.0384 63.4784 190. Saint Paul Aleut NV Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands (Saint Paul Island) −170.2727 57.1274 191. Salamatof Cook Inlet NV Village of Salamatoff −151.3194 60.6154 192. Sand Point Aleut NV Qagun Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village −160.4905 55.3458 193. Savoonga Bering Straits NV Native Village of Savoonga −170.4640 63.6959 194. Saxman Sealaska NV Organized Village of Saxman −131.6003 55.3221 195. Scammon Bay Calista NV Native Village of Scammon Bay −165.5818 61.8417 196. Selawik NANA NV Native Village of Selawik −160.0162 66.5984 197. Seldovia Cook Inlet NV Seldovia Village Tribe −151.7123 59.4390 198. Shageluk Doyon NV Shageluk Native Village −159.5227 62.6556 199. Shaktoolik Bering Straits NV Native Village of Shaktoolik −161.1845 64.3495 200. Shishmaref Bering Straits NV Native Village of Shishmaref −166.0666 66.2564 201. Shungnak NANA NV Native Village of Shungnak −157.1426 66.8873 202. Sitka Sealaska UC Sitka Tribe of Alaska −135.3426 57.0543 203. Skagway Sealaska n/a Skagway Village −135.3119 59.4583 204. Sleetmute Calista NV Village of Sleetmute −157.1689 61.6962 205. Solomon Bering Straits NV Village of Solomon −164.4488 64.5597 206. South Naknek Bristol Bay NV South Naknek Village −157.0026 58.7123 207. Stebbins Bering Straits NV Stebbins Community Association −162.2820 63.5208 208. Stevens Village Doyon NV Native Village of Stevens −149.1039 66.0055 209. Stony River Calista NV Village of Stony River −156.5898 61.7891 210. Takotna Doyon NV Takotna Village −156.0870 62.9723 211. Tanacross Doyon NV Native Village of Tanacross −143.3565 63.3762 212. Tanana Doyon NV Native Village of Tanana −152.0763 65.1716 213. Tatitlek Chugach NV Native Village of Tatitlek −146.6779 60.8664 214. Tazlina Ahtna NV Native Village of Tazlina −145.4284 62.0589 215. Telida Doyon NV Telida Village −153.2785 63.3840 216. Teller Bering Straits NV Native Village of Teller −166.3628 65.2613 217. Tetlin Doyon NV Native Village of Tetlin −142.5239 63.1351 218. Togiak Bristol Bay NV Traditional Village of Togiak −160.3764 59.0619 219. Tuluksak Calista NV Tuluksak Native Community −160.9630 61.1020 220. Tuntutuliak Calista NV Native Village of Tuntutuliak −162.6696 60.3424 221. Tununak Calista NV Native Village of Tununak −165.2588 60.5827 222. Twin Hills Bristol Bay NV Twin Hills Village −160.2836 59.0774 223. Tyonek Cook Inlet NV Native Village of Tyonek −151.1494 61.0716 224. Uganik Koniag NV n/a −153.4046 57.7565 225. Ugashik Bristol Bay NV Ugashik Village −157.3887 57.5027 226. Ukivok Bering Straits NV King Island Native Community −168.0718 64.9643 227. Umkumiute Calista NV Umkumiute Native Village −165.1989 60.4997 228. Unalakleet Bering Straits NV Native Village of Unalakleet −160.7914 63.8777 229. Unalaska Aleut NV Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska −166.5337 53.8746 230. Unga Aleut NV Native Village of Unga −160.5050 55.1841 231. Uyak Koniag NV n/a −154.0078 57.6336 232. Venetie Doyon NV Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Village of Venetie) −146.4149 67.0178 233. Wainwright Arctic Slope NV Village of Wainwright −160.0202 70.6448 234. Wales Bering Straits NV Native Village of Wales −168.0960 65.6082 235. White Mountain Bering Straits NV Native Village of White Mountain −163.4042 64.6805 236. Wrangell Sealaska n/a Wrangell Cooperative Association −132.3791 56.4752 237. Yakutat Sealaska NV Yakutat Tlingit Tribe −139.7435 59.5543 7 In this column, “NV” means a “Native village”, “NG” means a “Native group”, “UC” means an “Urban Corporation”, and “n/a” means that the ANV is not recognized in accordance with the ANCSA. 8 The BIA recognized name for each ANV is taken from the Federal Register notice published Thursday, March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13648-13651). “n/a” in this column means that the ANV is not recognized by the BIA and is not listed in the BIA's Federal Register notice. 9 The ANVs Curyung, Ekuk, and Portage Creek are all represented by the same ANVC, Choggiung, Limited. Choggiung, Limited also represents the ANCSA 14(c) sites of Igushik and Lewis Point that should be considered when these three ANVs are delineating their ANVSAs. 10 The Kanatak ANV is currently located within the boundary of the Koniag ANRC in the Census Bureau's records, but they receive services from the Bristol Bay Native Association. If the ANRC boundaries and the ANV's point location are correct in the Census Bureau's records, the ANV will be eligible to delineate an ANVSA within the boundary of the Koniag ANRC for Census 2010. 11 The Port Alsworth ANV is currently located within the boundary of the Cook Inlet ANRC in the Census Bureau's records, but they receive services from the Bristol Bay Native Association. If the ANRC boundaries and the ANV's point location are correct in the Census Bureau's records, the ANV will be eligible to delineate an ANVSA within the boundary of the Cook Inlet ANRC for Census 2010. [FR Doc. E8-5282 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Revolving Loan Fund Reporting and Compliance Requirements AGENCY: Economic Development Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, 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. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kenneth M. Kukovich, EDA PRA Liaison, Office of Management Services, Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce, HCHB Room 7227, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4965; fax:
(202)501-0766; e-mail: *kkukovich@eda.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The mission of the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. One of EDA's seven economic development programs is the Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF)Program. Under the RLF Program, EDA's regional offices award competitive grants to units of state and local government, institutions of higher education, public or private non-profit institutions, EDA-approved economic development district organizations, and Indian Tribes to establish RLFs. Following a grant award, an RLF grantee disburses money from the RLF to make loans at interest rates that are at or below the current market rate to small businesses or to businesses that cannot otherwise borrow capital. On occasion, RLFs also make loans to finance public infrastructure. As the loans are repaid, the grantee uses a portion of interest earned to pay administrative expenses and adds the remaining principal and interest repayments to the RLF's capital base to make new loans. An RLF award that is well managed is actively used to make loans to eligible businesses and entities, continues to revolve funds, and *does not have a termination date.* One of the unique features of the program is that, by law, EDA must exercise fiduciary responsibility over its RLF portfolio in perpetuity—a significant challenge since many RLF grants date back to 1979. To date, EDA has managed its RLF portfolio by requiring grantees to file the *Semiannual Report for EDA-Funded RLF Grants* (ED-209S) every six months. EDA has exercised its discretion to allow some grantees to file on an annual basis, and these grantees submit the *Annual Report for EDA-Funded RLF Grants* (ED-209A) once a year. However, a recent Department of Commerce
(DOC)Office of Inspector General
(OIG)report titled *Aggressive EDA Leadership and Oversight Needed to Correct Persistent Problems in RLF Program* (Audit Report No. OA-18200-7-0001/March 2007; for the full report, see *http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2007/EDA-OA-18200-03-2007.pdf* ) found that EDA failed to exercise adequate oversight of the program. Specifically, the OIG found that EDA: • Did not have an adequate tracking and oversight system. • Failed to ensure grantees' compliance with critical financial and audit reporting requirements. • Failed to ensure efficient capital utilization by grantees. Under EDA's regulations, if an RLF grantee fails to satisfy its capital utilization requirement as set out in its RLF plan for two consecutive reporting periods, EDA can require the grantee to sequester “excess funds” in a separate interest-bearing account and remit the interest earned on these funds to the U.S. Treasury. (Under 13 CFR 307.16, “capital utilization rate” is the amount of RLF capital as currently loaned out or committed to be loaned out as a percentage of the RLF's capital base and “excess funds” is the difference between the actual percentage of RLF capital loaned and the applicable capital utilization percentage.) • EDA's failure to require sequestration of excess funds on a consistent basis has resulted in lower capital utilization rates and lower remittances to the U.S. Treasury than would be commensurate with adequate oversight of the program. • Did not use single audits as a tool for managing the RLF program. Under OMB Circular A-133, single audits are required of most RLF grantees. The OIG recommended that EDA develop an Action Plan to rectify these deficiencies and a “standard grantee reporting and monitoring system that provides the critical information EDA needs to manage the RLF program and protect its assets.” The OIG also recommended that EDA “ensure that all RLF grant recipients undergo required single audits and file reports with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse.” EDA agreed to implement the recommendations. As part of its implementation, EDA committed to reviewing the RLF reporting forms to:
(a)Ensure all information needed to manage the RLF program and protect EDA assets is collected,
(b)ensure that the form is suitably integrated into an automated RLF reporting, tracking, monitoring, and management system, and
(c)to the extent possible, minimize the paperwork burden on RLF grantees. In addition, EDA will update its regulations to reflect these changes to the RLF program and to ensure effective management of federal funds. Through this review, EDA determined the following: • The use of both annual and semi-annual reports is sub-optimal. In terms of providing valuable information to EDA for program monitoring purposes, the ED-209A is not as useful as the ED-209S. Also, the lack of identical fields on the two reporting forms makes it difficult, if not impossible, to report on the status of the portfolio as a whole. Having different RLF grantees fill out either the ED-209A or the ED-209S effectively separates RLF grantees into two groups, with two different sets of reporting requirements and reporting dates, which contributes to the large number of missing or late reports highlighted by the OIG. For these reasons EDA has determined that all RLF grantees will report semi-annually using Form ED-209S. • The fact that neither of the current reporting forms collects grantee EIN numbers makes it difficult, if not impossible, for EDA to determine whether a grantee has filed its single audit report with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. Searching by EIN number is the most reliable way to locate single audit reports in the Clearinghouse database. • EDA needs to begin collecting e-mail addresses to facilitate communication with grantees. • Many of the fields of the current RLF reporting forms are duplicative, and therefore contribute to reporting inconsistencies and errors. Some fields should not change from reporting period to reporting period (e.g., amount of EDA investment assistance provided), but are still requested each and every time. Many others are calculated fields, for example the “RLF income” field (line B.8 of the current ED-209S) is calculated as interest earned plus earnings from accounts plus fees earned (lines B.5, B.6, and B.7). The use of a hardcopy form with a large number of fields that must be calculated by the grantee has led to a significant amount of mathematical errors. EDA addressed the issues highlighted above by creating a web-based grantee reporting system that eliminates all duplicative and calculable fields. This system is designed to allow grantees, if they so choose, to upload data directly from their accounting software into the Web-based system, thus eliminating time-consuming data entry. Alternatively, grantees have the option of manually entering data into the Web-based system. All grantees will be provided with a unique user id and password, and the system will meet all NIST information technology security controls. All grantees will be required to report on a semi-annual basis and to provide e-mail contact information, as well as EIN and DUNS numbers. This system is expected to “go live” at the beginning of fiscal year 2009. II. Method of Collection The report will be submitted electronically. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0610-0095. *Form Number:* ED-209 (replaces ED-209S and ED-209A). *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,168. *Estimated Time per Response:* 3 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 3,504. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5216 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-822] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5604 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUMMARY: On February 11, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico covering the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008) ( *Final Results* ). We are amending the *Final Results* to correct a ministerial error in the calculation of the assessment rate applicable to entries of the respondent in this proceeding, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. and Mexinox USA, Inc. (collectively, Mexinox), pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR 351.224(e). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 11, 2008, the Department received from Mexinox a timely allegation of a ministerial error pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1). Mexinox alleges that the Department miscalculated the assessment rate in the final results. Mexinox states the Department did not include the reported customs value related to certain material which entered the United States for consumption but was returned to Mexico after further-processing in the United States. Mexinox states the Department explained its intention to include the customs value of this material in the denominator of the assessment rate in its memorandum “Analysis of Data Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico (A-201-822).” Mexinox further notes it paid antidumping duty cash deposits on this material without a sale having been made to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. However, Mexinox contends the Department did not, in fact, incorporate the customs value at issue in calculating the assessment rate. Petitioners did not comment on the alleged ministerial error. Amended Final Results of Review A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act, “includes errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” *See also* 19 CFR 351.224(f). After analyzing Mexinox's allegation, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that the Department made a ministerial error in the final results by inadvertently excluding the customs value at issue from our assessment rate calculation. Therefore, we are amending the final results of administrative review of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 to include the customs value at issue. The weighted-average percentage margin for Mexinox remains unchanged at 2.31 percent. Therefore, there is no need to issue new cash deposit instructions for these amended final results of this administrative review. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 41 days after publication of these amended final results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5299 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-886] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCB”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 30, 2006. On September 10, 2007, we published our preliminary results. *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 72 FR 51588 (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4114 or
(202)482-5831, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 10, 2007, the Department published the Preliminary Results. The mandatory respondents in this case are Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and United Power Packaging, Ltd. (collectively, “Nozawa”), and Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. (“Rally”). Additionally, this review covers a PRC exporter and its wholly-owned producer that are requesting a separate rate, Chun Hing Plastic Packaging Mfy. Ltd., and Chun Yip Plastic Bag Factory (collectively, “Chun Hing”). On September 4, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Rally requesting that it address deficiencies in its factors of production (“FOP”) allocation methodology. Rally submitted a response to this questionnaire on October 1, 2007. Nozawa, Rally, and the petitioners 1 submitted case briefs on November 1, 2007, and rebuttal briefs on November 7, 2007. In addition, Rally submitted a request for a hearing on October 10, 2007, but withdrew the request on November 13, 2007. 1 The petitioners are Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and the Superbag Corporation. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) for this administrative review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the investigation excludes
(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and
(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 2 This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 2 “Until July 1, 2005, these products were classifiable under HTSUS 3923.21.0090 (Sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene, other). *See* Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(2005)- Supplement 1 Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes Change Record - 17th Edition - Supplement 1, available at http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0510/0510chgs.pdf. Partial Rescission of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily rescinded this administrative review with respect to Crown Polyethylene Products (Int'l) Ltd. (“Crown”); Heng Rong Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (“Heng Rong”); and Samson Plastic Manufactory Co., Ltd. (“Samson”). *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 51589-90. No additional comments were received regarding the preliminary rescission of these companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have rescinded the administrative review with respect to Crown, Heng Rong, and Samson. Duty Absorption As noted above, we have rescinded the review for Crown Heng Rong and Samson, thus making the petitioner's request for calculating duty absorption with respect to these companies moot. In addition, Rally did not sell subject merchandise in the United States through an affiliated importer. Thus, according to section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), we did not investigate whether Rally absorbed duties. In this case, only Nozawa sold subject merchandise in the United States through an affiliated importer. Prior to the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* , the Department asked Nozawa to provide evidence to demonstrate that its unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries of subject merchandise. Nozawa did not respond to the Department's request. *See* Memorandum from Mark Manning, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, regarding “Nozawa's Response to Request for Duty Absorption Information,” dated August 16, 2007. Accordingly, absent such information on the record, the Department found in the *Preliminary Results* that it cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the assessed duties. We received no comments from interested parties on our duty absorption finding. Therefore, because Nozawa did not rebut the duty-absorption presumption with evidence that its unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we continue to find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Nozawa on all U.S. sales made through its affiliated importers. *See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan* , 70 FR 73727 (December 13, 2005). Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. In the *Preliminary Results* , we found that Chun Hing, Nozawa, and Rally demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. We received no comments from interested parties regarding the separate rate status of these companies. Therefore, in these final results of review, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this review by the above-referenced companies demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to their exports of the merchandise under review. Thus, we have determined that Chun Hing, Nozawa, and Rally are eligible to receive separate rates. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Results* , we treated the PRC as a NME country and, therefore, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Also, we stated that we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this review for the following reasons:
(1)it is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise; and
(2)it is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 51591. No interested party commented on our designation of the PRC as an NME country, nor the selection of India as the surrogate country. Therefore, for the final results of review, we have continued to treat the PRC as an NME country and have used the same surrogate country, India, for these final results. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China,” dated March 10, 2008 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room 1117 in the main Commerce Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made the following changes in the margin calculations for PCRBs:
(1)in surrogate financial ratios we included “rates and taxes” in the SG&A calculation,
(2)material costs were adjusted for changes in raw material inventories,
(3)the appropriate profit amount was used and
(4)we revised the calculation of the total value of direct materials to include the value of upper polyvinylchloride (“PVC”) inputs. Final Results of the Review The Department has determined that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Chun Hing Plastic Packaging Mfy. Ltd. and Chun Yip Plastic Bag Factory 17.30 Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd. and United Power Packaging, Ltd. 2.58 Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. 32.02 Assessment Rates The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer or customer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for subject merchandise exported by Chun Hing, Nozawa, and Rally, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide rate of 77.57 percent;
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comments with Respect to Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 1:* Offset of Selling, General, and Administrative (“SG&A”) by Interest Income *Comment 2:* “Rates and Taxes” in the SG&A Calculation *Comment 3:* Adjustment to Material Costs by the Amount of Changes in Raw Material and Work-In-Progress Inventories *Comment 4:* Correction to the Profit Amount Comments with Respect to Nozawa *Comment 5:* Cash Deposit and Liquidation Instructions Comments with Respect to Rally *Comment 6:* Appropriate Surrogate Value for Ink *Comment 7:* Valuation of Recycled Scrap and Scrap By-Product *Comment 8:* Revised Allocation Methodology [FR Doc. E8-5300 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-851] Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors from the Republic of Korea for the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. Following the preliminary results, we conducted verification and provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results and our verification findings. Based on information received since the preliminary results and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the net subsidy rate for Hynix. The final net subsidy rate for Hynix is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher or Shane Subler, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5823 or
(202)482-0189, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary results of this review. * See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review * , 72 FR 51609 (September 10, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). From November 9 to November 14, 2007, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of Korea (“GOK”) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (“Hynix”), the only company covered in this review. On December 28, 2007, we received a hearing request from the GOK and Hynix. On January 18, 2008, we received a hearing request from the petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”). On January 30, 2008, Micron also requested a closed hearing to discuss one of the issues it raised in its case brief. On January 30, 2008, we received a case brief from Micron and a joint case brief from Hynix and the GOK. We received rebuttal briefs from Hynix and the GOK, Micron, and Qimonda North America, a domestic interested party, on February 6, 2008. A hearing was held at the Department on February 12, 2008. The hearing comprised both a public session and a closed session. On October 2, 2007, we extended the time limit for the final results of this administrative review by 60 days (to March 10, 2008), pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 56052 (October 2, 2007). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are dynamic random access memory semiconductors (“DRAMS”) from the Republic of Korea (“ROK”), whether assembled or unassembled. Assembled DRAMS include all package types. Unassembled DRAMS include processed wafers, uncut die, and cut die. Processed wafers fabricated in the ROK, but assembled into finished semiconductors outside the ROK are also included in the scope. Processed wafers fabricated outside the ROK and assembled into finished semiconductors in the ROK are not included in the scope. The scope of this order additionally includes memory modules containing DRAMS from the ROK. A memory module is a collection of DRAMS, the sole function of which is memory. Memory modules include single in-line processing modules, single in-line memory modules, dual in-line memory modules, small outline dual in-line memory modules, Rambus in-line memory modules, and memory cards or other collections of DRAMS, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that are needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those modules that contain additional items which alter the function of the module to something other than memory, such as video graphics adapter boards and cards, are not included in the scope. This order also covers future DRAMS module types. The scope of this order additionally includes, but is not limited to, video random access memory and synchronous graphics random access memory, as well as various types of DRAMS, including fast page-mode, extended data-out, burst extended data-out, synchronous dynamic RAM, Rambus DRAM, and Double Data Rate DRAM. The scope also includes any future density, packaging, or assembling of DRAMS. Also included in the scope of this order are removable memory modules placed on motherboards, with or without a central processing unit, unless the importer of the motherboards certifies with CBP that neither it, nor a party related to it or under contract to it, will remove the modules from the motherboards after importation. The scope of this order does not include DRAMS or memory modules that are re-imported for repair or replacement. The DRAMS subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8542.21.8005, 8542.21.8020 through 8542.21.8030, and 8542.32.0001 through 8542.32.0023 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The memory modules containing DRAMS from the ROK, described above, are currently classifiable under subheadings 8473.30.1040, 8473.30.1080, 8473.30.1140, and 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS. Removable memory modules placed on motherboards are classifiable under subheadings 8443.99.2500, 8443.99.2550, 8471.50.0085, 8471.50.0150, 8517.30.5000, 8517.50.1000, 8517.50.5000, 8517.50.9000, 8517.61.0000, 8517.62.0010, 8517.62.0050, 8517.69.0000, 8517.70.0000, 8517.90.3400, 8517.90.3600, 8517.90.3800, 8517.90.4400, 8542.21.8005, 8542.21.8020, 8542.21.8021, 8542.21.8022, 8542.21.8023, 8542.21.8024, 8542.21.8025, 8542.21.8026, 8542.21.8027, 8542.21.8028, 8542.21.8029, 8542.21.8030, 8542.31.0000, 8542.33.0000, 8542.39.0000, 8543.89.9300, and 8543.89.9600 of the HTSUS. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope. Scope Rulings On December 29, 2004, the Department received a request from Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), to determine whether removable memory modules placed on motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are within the scope of the *CVD Order* . *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 47546 (August 11, 2003) (“ *CVD Order* ”). The Department initiated a scope inquiry pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(e) on February 4, 2005. On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a final scope ruling, finding that removable memory modules placed on motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are not within the scope of the *CVD Order* provided that the importer certifies that it will destroy any memory modules that are removed for repair or refurbishment. *See* Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, regarding Final Scope Ruling, Countervailing Duty Order on DRAMs from the Republic of Korea (January 12, 2006). Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, *i.e.* , the period of review (“POR”), is January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the March 10, 2008, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Third Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea* (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the public *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter, Hynix. For the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, we find that the *ad valorem* net subsidy rate for Hynix is 23.78 percent. Assessment Rates Fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of DRAMS by Hynix entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, at 23.78 percent *ad valorem* of the F.O.B. invoice price. Cash Deposits The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 23.78 percent *ad valorem* of the entered value on all shipments of the subject merchandise from Hynix, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. The Department has previously excluded Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from this order. *See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 44290 (July 28, 2003). Thus, the “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Timing of the Benefit on a Previously Countervailed Debt-to-Equity Swap (“DES”) *Comment 2:* Allegation that Hynix is Circumventing the Order *Comment 3:* Application of Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) for Undiscosed Grant Presented at Verification *Comment 4:* Whether Deposit Rate Should Be Adjusted to Provide a Reasonable Estimate of Future CVD Liability *Comment 5:* Whether There Are Errors that Lead to Double and Triple Counting of Benefits of Principalized Interest Loans *Comment 6:* Whether the Import Duty Reduction Program is Specific to Hynix [FR Doc. E8-5302 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE)from the Republic of Korea (Korea). *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 51584 (September 10, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers three 1 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union) (collectively, respondents). The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. 1 Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, the POSCO Group) were originally included as a respondent in the instant review; however, the Department rescinded this review with respect to the POSCO Group. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative* , 72 FR 58286 (October 15, 2007) ( *POSCO Rescission* ). As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . For our final results, we have found that during the POR, HYSCO, Dongbu and Union sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), Cindy Robinson (Dongbu), Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group), and Jolanta Lawska (Union), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4161,
(202)482-3797,
(202)482-5075, and
(202)482-8362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 10, 2007, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* . On October 26, 2007, the Department published the notice of extension of final results of the antidumping administrative review of CORE from Korea, extending the date for these final results to March 10, 2008. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 60799 (October 26, 2007). Comments from Interested Parties We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . On January 22, 2008, ArcelorMittal Steel Inc. (Mittal), United States Steel Corporation (US Steel), and Nucor Corporation (Nucor) filed case briefs concerning all of the respondents and each of the respondents filed a case brief. On January 28, 2008, Mittal, US Steel, and Nucor each filed a rebuttal brief concerning all of the respondents. On January 28, 2008, each of the respondents filed a rebuttal brief. Scope of the Order This order covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (terne plate), or both chromium and chromium oxides (tin-free steel), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn>. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review: We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dongbu 4.96%% Union 4.35%% HYSCO 0.53%% Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment'” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review ( *i.e.* , companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) where the companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act):
(1)for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. Administrative Protective Order This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum A. General Issues *Comment 1:* Treatment of Sales with Negative Dumping Margins (Zeroing) *Comment 2:* Model-Match Methodology and Laminated Products B. Company-Specific Issues Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. *Comment 3:* CEP Offset *Comment 4:* Home Market Rebates *Comment 5:* Scrap Offset Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. *Comment 6:* CEP Offset *Comment 7:* Indirect Selling Expense *Comment 8:* U.S. Warranty Expenses *Comment 9:* Treatment of Certain Home Market Sales as Non-Prime Merchandise *Comment 10:* Treatment of E-Business Sales in the Home Market as Overruns Hyundai HYSCO *Comment 11:* Non-Prime Merchandise in the Calculation of Normal Value *Comment 12:* CEP Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea *Comment 13:* POR Window Period *Comment 14:* Short-Term Interest Rate *Comment 15:* HHU CEP Selling Expenses *Comment 16:* Sales to Affiliates in the CEP Profit Calculation *Comment 17:* Inclusion of Scrap Revenue in the Cost of Goods Sold [FR Doc. E8-5298 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-834] Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6312 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 24, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review for, *inter alia* , purified carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico for the July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, period of review (POR). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 245 day time period for the preliminary results to 365 days. The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because of significant issues that require additional time to evaluate. These include extremely complicated issues involving Amtex’s use of multiple currencies in both markets and certain movement expenses. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review until no later than July 30, 2008, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of these orders. We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5297 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 080307398-8399-01] RIN 0648-ZB87 NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program AGENCY: Office of Education (OED), Office of the Under Secretary (USEC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of funding availability. SUMMARY: NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) is an environmental education program that promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 environment. Funded projects provide meaningful watershed educational experiences for students, related professional development for teachers, and helps to support regional education and environmental priorities in the Pacific Northwest, the northern Gulf of Mexico and New England. These new geographic areas are intended to build upon on the successes of the existing B-WET Programs in the Chesapeake Bay, California, and Hawaii. DATES: Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. on April 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Electronic application packages are strongly encouraged and are available at: *http://www.grants.gov/* . Paper application packages are available on the NOAA Grants Management Web site at: *http://www.ago.noaa.gov/grants/appkit.shtml* . If the applicant has difficulty accessing Grants.gov or downloading the required forms from the NOAA website, they should contact: For the Pacific Northwest contact, Seaberry Nachbar, NOAA National Marine Sanctuary, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940, or by phone at 831-647-4201, or via internet at *seaberry.nachbar@noaa.gov* ; For the northern Gulf of Mexico contact, Stephanie Bennett Pacific Services Center, 737 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI 96817, or by phone at 808-522-7481, or via Internet at: *stephanie.bennett@noaa.gov* ; For New England, Shannon Sprague, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A, Annapolis, MD 21403, or by phone at 410-267-5664, or via internet at *shannon.sprague@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the Pacific Northwest, please contact Seaberry Nachbar, NOAA National Marine Sanctuary, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940, or by phone at 831-647-4201, or via internet at *seaberry.nachbar@noaa.gov* ; For the northern Gulf of Mexico, Stephanie Bennett Pacific Services Center, 737 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI 96817, or by phone at 808-522-7481, or via internet at *stephanie.bennett@noaa.gov* ; For New England, Shannon Sprague, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A, Annapolis, MD 21403, or by phone at 410-267-5664, or via internet at *shannon.sprague@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program is an environmental education program that supports experiential learning through local competitive grant awards in specific geographic regions. Currently B-WET Programs are implemented in the Chesapeake Bay, California, and the Hawaiian Islands. In FY08, it is anticipated that funds will be available to expand B-WET programs in up to three additional regions. Proposals are currently being solicited from the Pacific Northwest region, the northern Gulf of Mexico region, and New England region. The regions used above and throughout each section are defined as follows: a. Pacific Northwest—the states of Oregon and Washington; b. Northern Gulf of Mexico—the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; c. New England—the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. NOAA recognizes that knowledge and commitment built from firsthand experience, especially in the context of ones community and culture, is essential for achieving environmental stewardship. Carefully selected experiences driven by rigorous academic learning standards, engendering discovery and wonder, and nurturing a sense of community will further connect students with their watershed, help reinforce an ethic of responsible citizenship, and promote academic achievement. Experiential learning techniques, such as those supported by the NOAA B-WET Program, have been shown to increase interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), thus contributing to NOAA's obligations under the America COMPETES Act (33 U.S.C. 893a(a)). Electronic Access: The full text of the full funding opportunity announcement for this program can be accessed via the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov* . The announcement may also be available by contacting the program officials identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. Statutory Authority: Under 33 U.S.C. 893a(a), the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized to conduct, develop, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational activities at all levels to enhance public awareness and understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers. In conducting those activities, the Administrator shall build upon the educational programs and activities of the agency. CFDA: 11.469, Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects *Funding Availability:* Approximately $2,000,000 is available in FY2008 and approximately $2,000,000 is anticipated for FY 2009 for new awards. The distribution of available funds among the three regions will depend on the number of high-quality proposals received from each region. If an insufficient number of high-quality proposals are received from a particular region (or regions), funds will be distributed among the remaining region(s) from which there are sufficient fundable projects. NOAA anticipates making approximately 5 to 15 new awards during FY 2008 and 5 to 15 new awards during FY 2009. NOAA will only consider projects with duration of 1 to 3 years. The total Federal amount that may be requested from NOAA shall not exceed $100,000 per year and $300,000 for all years of the proposed project. The minimum Federal amount that must be requested from NOAA is $50,000. Applications requesting Federal support from NOAA of less than $50,000 total or more than $100,000 per year and $300,000 total for the duration of the project will not be considered for funding. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the government. Notwithstanding verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs unless approved by the Grants Officer as part of the terms when the award is made. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are K-through-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, community-based and nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, interstate agencies, and Indian tribal governments. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that service undeserved areas. While applicants do not need to be from the targeted geographical regions specified in the program objectives, they must be working with target audiences in these areas. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing is required under this program, however, the NOAA B-WET Program strongly encourages applicants include a 25 percent or higher match. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash vs. in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration during the review process. Priority selection is given to proposals that propose cash rather than in-kind. *Evaluation and Selection Procedures:* The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. The evaluation criteria for full applications will have different weights and details. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement. *Evaluation Criteria for Projects:* 1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposal to the program goals (30 points). This criterion ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local activities. For the NOAA B-WET Program, the following questions are posed to each reviewer: Does the project make a direct connection to the greater marine or estuarine environment? Does the proposal make an intentional connection to the watershed system and how actions within that system can affect the marine and estuarine environment? What is the likelihood that the proposed environmental activities would improve the general understanding of the environment? Does the experience focus around questions, problems, or issues pertaining to specific region? Is the project design project-oriented, hands-on, investigative, and part of a sustained activity? Does the project include pre- and post-activities? Does the project address multiple disciplines? 2. Technical merit (35 points). This criterion assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. For the NOAA B-WET Program the following questions are proposed to each reviewer: Does the proposal clearly outline how the project is an integral part of the instructional program? *For Exemplary programs only:* Does the project combine Teacher Professional Development with long-term classroom-integrated Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences for their Students? *For student programs only:* Is the project aligned with academic learning standards in science and other disciplines? *For teacher professional development programs only:* Does the teacher receive the needed support to fully participate in the program (i.e., continuing education credit, substitute teachers, stipends, etc.)? Is this support reasonable and necessary? Does the applicant utilize NOAA programs, lesson plans, or a curriculum focused on marine and estuarine issues? Does the applicant use NOAA personnel to enhance their project? Does the applicant demonstrate how their project is aligned and supports the goals and strategies of the NOAA Education Plan? Does the applicant show a knowledge and understanding of the NOAA Education Plan ( *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/NOAA_Ed_Plan.pdf* )? Are the objectives in the proposal clearly defined and focused? Does the applicant demonstrate that the objectives are realistic and can be reached within the proposed project period? Are the project outcomes measurable and have significant and lasting benefits for teachers and students? Does the evaluation component of the project focus on measuring changes in participants (changes can be in knowledge, attitudes, skills or conservation actions)? Do the changes measured in participants (outcomes) match the project goals and objectives, which include engaging participants in meaningful watershed educational experiences? 3. Overall qualifications of applicants (10 points). This criterion ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For the NOAA B-WET Program the following questions are posed to each reviewer: Does the applicant show the capability and experience in successfully completing similar projects? Does the proposal include resumes of the Principal Investigators and other staff members? Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the target audience? Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the Content Standards for their state? Does the applicant document past collaborations with schools or school systems? Does the applicant show the capability and experience in successfully completing similar projects? Are the partners involved in the project qualified? 4. Project costs (20 points). This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time frame. For the NOAA B-WET Program the following questions are posed to each reviewer: Does the applicant demonstrate the ability to leverage other resources? Is the nature of the cost share cash or in-kind? Is the budget request reasonable and does the applicant justify the proposed budget request? Is a significant percentage of the budget directly related to bringing students and teachers in contact with the environment? Are requested funds for salaries and fringe benefits only for those personnel who are directly involved in implementing the proposed project and/or are directly related to specific products or outcomes of the proposed project? Does the applicant demonstrate sustainability beyond the project period? Does the applicant demonstrate that the project will continue after NOAA funding has expired? 5. Outreach and education (5 points). This criterion assesses whether the project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. For the NOAA B-WET Program the following questions are posed to each reviewer: Does the project involve external sharing and communication? Does the target audience share their findings, experiences, or results to their peers or their community? *Review and Selection Process:* Upon receipt of a proposal by NOAA, an initial administrative review will be conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the proposal. All proposals that meet the minimum eligibility requirements will be evaluated and scored by a panel of independent reviewers. Three separate review panels may be held one for each geographical region described in I.B.4 of the Full Funding Opportunity. Reviewers serving on each panel may be Federal or non-Federal experts, each having expertise in areas relevant to the priority under consideration. The reviewers will score each proposal assigned to them using the evaluation criteria and relative weights provided above. The individual reviewers' ratings will be averaged for each application to establish rank order for that priority. No consensus advice will be given by the review panels. Scores from separate panels will not be combined to establish an overall rank order among all geographical regions. The Program Officer will neither vote nor score applications as part of the review panels nor participate in discussion of the merits of any application. The Program Officer will make his/her recommendations for funding based on rank order of each panel and the selection factors listed below to the Selecting Official for final funding decisions. *Selection Factors for Projects:* The B-WET Program Managers will review the ranking of the proposals and recommendations of the review panels. The average numerical ranking from the review panel will be the primary consideration in deciding which of the proposals will be recommended for funding to the Selecting Official. The Selecting Official shall award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding; 2. Balance/distribution of funds; a. Geographically b. By type of institutions c. By type of partners d. By research areas e. By project types 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other federal agencies; 4. Program priorities and policy factors as set out in section I.B.1-5 and section III.B. of the Full Funding Opportunity; 5. Applicants prior award performance; 6. Partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups; 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendation for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Selected applicants may be asked to modify objectives, project plans or budgets, and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to the award. When a decision has been made (whether an award or declination), verbatim anonymous copies of reviews and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, will be made available to the applicant. In anticipation of additional funding, applications declined funding in FY2008 may be retained for up to 1 year for consideration for funding in FY2009. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. *Limitation of Liability:* In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):* NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this solicitation. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. *Executive Order 12866:* This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Helen Hurcombe, Director, Acquisition and Grants Office. [FR Doc. E8-5278 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeal by Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of appeal. SUMMARY: This announcement provides notice that Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
(TCA)has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Commerce asking that the Secretary override the California Coastal Commission's
(CCC)objection to TCA's construction of an extension to California State Route 241 in northern San Diego and southern Orange Counties, California. ADDRESSES: Materials from the appeal record will be available at the NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and on the following Web site: *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Notice of Appeal On February 15, 2008, TCA filed notice of an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.* , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H. TCA appealed an objection to its construction of an extension to California State Route 241 in northern San Diego and southern Orange Counties, California. Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override CCC's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that:
(1)The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner;
(2)the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and
(3)no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the CCC's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. II. Opportunity for Federal Agency and Public Comment and Public Hearing Pursuant to regulation, the public and interested Federal agencies may submit any comments on this appeal from April 28, 2008—May 28, 2008. All comments should be directed in writing to the NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or via e-mail to *gcos.comments@noaa.gov.* Federal regulations also allow for a public hearing for this appeal, occurring at the Secretary's own initiative or upon request. A request for a public hearing must be filed with the Secretary within 30 days of the date of this notice's publication in the **Federal Register** . Such requests should be directed in writing to the Secretary at the following address: Thomas Street, staff attorney, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. III. Appeal Documents NOAA intends to provide the public with access to all publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record during business hours, at the NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services. For additional information about this appeal, please contact Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov.* Dated: March 11, 2008. Joel La Bissonniere, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. [Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Assistance.] [FR Doc. E8-5247 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG26 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit
(EFP)from the Alaska Groundfish Databank. If granted, this permit would allow the applicant to continue the development and testing of an electronic monitoring system designed to quantify the amount of halibut caught and discarded at sea. This activity is intended to promote the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)by potentially allowing for an alternative cost effective estimation of halibut bycatch in the rockfish fishery. Comments will be accepted at the April 1-7, 2008, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in Anchorage, AK. DATES: Interested persons may comment on the EFP application and on the environmental assessment during the Council's April 1-7, 2008, meeting in Anchorage, AK. ADDRESSES: The Council meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Ave., Anchorage, AK. Copies of the EFP application and the basis for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act are available by writing to the Alaska Region, NMFS, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. The application also is available from the Alaska Region, NMFS website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennfier Watson, 907-586-7537 or *jennifer.watson@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at §§ 600.745(b) and 679.6 authorize issuance of EFPs to allow fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations. NMFS received an application for an EFP from the Alaska Groundfish Databank on March 3, 2008. The purposes of the EFP project are to continue testing a video-based electronic monitoring
(EM)system that is designed to quantify the amount of halibut discarded at sea; to investigate mechanisms for implementing regulations for such a system; and to investigate how EM data can be integrated into the NMFS catch accounting system. Background NMFS issued a final rule to implement the Central GOA rockfish pilot program on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67210). This program established a quota based fishery organized around fishing cooperatives for vessels and processors with historic participation in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. Participating cooperatives are given quotas of various rockfish and non-rockfish species as well as sufficient halibut prohibited species quota
(PSC)to conduct those fisheries. With the exception of halibut PSC, all quota harvested by catcher vessels must be landed at a participating processor where quota accounting takes place. Halibut PSC must be discarded at-sea and halibut catch is estimated by at-sea observers. In order to credibly account for halibut discard, and to ensure that the discard of other quota species does not occur, NMFS required that observer coverage be increased from 30 to 100% when the program was implemented. Industry is concerned that costs associated with full observer coverage are high relative to the increased revenue of the program. Further, NMFS believes that wherever possible quota catch should be accounted for based on a full census of catch. This is not possible for halibut PSC under the current system. To address these concerns Alaska Groundfish Databank developed, in conjunction with NMFS staff, an alternative approach to manage shoreside rockfish fisheries that could include the use of EM to replace a portion of the required observer coverage. The EM system is designed to ensure that nothing other than halibut is discarded at sea, and to quantify the amount of halibut discarded. Cameras designed to give an overview of the entire deck are installed to ensure that discard only occurs in a single specified location. Other cameras, focused on the specified location, photograph each halibut as it is discarded. All data from the cameras, as well as location information from an onboard GPS system, is recorded to disk for review at the end of each trip. Following completion of each trip the data are analyzed to ensure that unauthorized discard did not take place and to estimate the length of each halibut discarded. In 2007, NMFS issued an EFP to conduct research into the viability of this system on a single vessel. While a final report on this project has not been completed, a preliminary review of the data would indicate that the system is effective at accomplishing these goals. This EFP would continue that research on a larger number of vessels fishing under non-experimental conditions and would focus on issues associated with implementation rather than on a technical or scientific assessment of the EM system itself. To continue testing the EM system, exemptions would be necessary from regulations for observer coverage. Among the goals of this project are to determine the extent to which crew behavior changes when an observer is present and to attempt to mimic a regulatory environment in which a portion of the observer coverage is replaced by an EM system. In order to investigate these issues in a cost effective manner that ensures participation in the EFP fishery, it will be necessary to reduce observer coverage levels for vessels participating in the project to the pre-rockfish pilot program levels of 30%. Because participating vessels will be monitored electronically, such a reduction is not expected to change actual fishing behavior, trip duration, or the amount of fish harvested. The activities proposed to be conducted under the EFP are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment as detailed in the categorical exclusion issued for this action (see ADDRESSES ). In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the proposal warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council will consider the EFP application during its April 1-7, 2008, meeting, which will be held at the Hilton Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application. Public Comments Interested persons may comment on the application at the April 2008 Council meeting during public testimony. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/council.htm* . Copies of the application and categorical exclusion are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 12, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5304 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas and Response to Comments AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas. SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of the Interior
(DOI)jointly propose the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Revised Draft Framework), as required by Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This Revised Draft Framework provides overarching guidance for collaborative efforts among federal, state, tribal and local governments and stakeholders to develop an effective National System of MPAs (National System) from existing sites, build coordination and collaborative efforts, and identify ecosystem-based gaps in the protection of significant natural and cultural resources for possible future action by the nation's MPA authorities. The document further provides the guiding principles, key definitions, goals, and objectives for the National System, based on the breadth of input received from MPA stakeholders and governmental partners around the nation over the past several years. The intent of this document is to summarize and respond to comments received on the initial draft document during the September 2006 through February 2007 public comment period, and solicit additional public input on the proposed Revised Draft Framework in order to develop a final document that meets the nation's interests in the National System. The Revised Draft Framework incorporates significant modifications based on due consideration of all comments and recommendations received on the initial draft document. At the end of the comment period on this Revised Draft Framework, NOAA will publish the final Framework, again with consideration of input received. DATES: Comments must be received before 11:59 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: All comments regarding the Revised Draft Framework should be submitted to Joseph Uravitch, National MPA Center, N/ORM, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Comments sent via e-mail should be sent to *mpa.comments@noaa.gov* , and all comments sent by fax should be sent to 301-713-3110. E-mail and fax comments should state “Revised Draft Framework Comments” in the subject line. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct all questions and requests for additional information concerning the Revised Draft Framework, as well as for paper copies of the document to: Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301-713-3100, or via e-mail at *mpa.comments@noaa.gov* . E-mail requests should state either “Question” or “Paper Copy Request” in the subject line. An electronic copy of the Revised Draft Framework is available for download at *http://www.mpa.gov/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA)National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center), in cooperation with the Department of the Interior (DOI), has developed this *Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of MPAs* (Revised Draft Framework) to meet requirements under Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas. The purpose of this notice is to solicit additional input and comments on the Revised Draft Framework from governments and stakeholders in order to ensure that the final document represents the diversity of the nation's interests in the marine environment and MPAs. The Revised Draft Framework incorporates significant modifications based on due consideration of comments and recommendations received on the initial draft document during the September 2006 through February 2007 public comment period. Increasing impacts on the world's oceans from development, overfishing, a changing climate, and natural events are straining the health of coastal, Great Lakes, and marine ecosystems. Impacts to these intricately balanced environments include declining fish populations, degradation of coral reefs and other vital habitats, threats to rare or endangered species, and loss of artifacts and areas that represent the United States' (U.S.) diverse cultural heritage. The effects of these losses are significant and jeopardize the social and economic fabric of the nation. In the U.S. and around the world, marine protected areas
(MPA)are increasingly recognized as an important and promising management tool for mitigating or buffering these impacts. When used effectively and as a part of a broader ecosystem-based approach to management, MPAs can help to restore and maintain healthy Great Lakes and marine environments by contributing to the overall protection of critical marine habitats and resources. In this way, effective MPAs also can offer social and economic opportunities for current and future generations, such as tourism, biotechnology, fishing, education, and scientific research. There are nearly 2,000 existing MPAs in the U.S. that have been established by federal, state, territorial, and local governments to protect and conserve the nation's rich natural and cultural marine heritage and sustainable production resources. These MPAs have been designated to achieve a myriad of conservation objectives, ranging from conservation of biodiversity hotspots, to preservation of sunken historic vessels, to protection of spawning aggregations important to commercial and recreational fisheries. Similarly, the level of protection provided by these MPAs ranges from no-take marine reserves to allowing multiple uses, including fishing. Recognizing the significant role that U.S. MPAs play in conserving marine heritage and sustainable use, and the lack of a national framework for comprehensive MPA planning, coordination and support, Presidential Executive Order 13158 (Order) calls for the development a National System of Marine Protected Areas (national system). The Order clearly calls for a *national* and not a *federal* system, and requires collaboration with federal agencies, as well as coastal states and territories, tribes, Federal Fishery Management Councils, and other entities, as appropriate, including the MPA Federal Advisory Committee. It further specifies that the national system be scientifically based, comprehensive, and represent the nation's diverse marine ecosystems and natural and cultural resources. In order to provide a roadmap for building the national system, the Order calls for the development of a framework for a national system of MPAs and establishes the MPA Center within NOAA to lead its development and implementation. This Revised Draft Framework is the second draft. The first draft Framework has been revised with due consideration of over 11,000 comments and recommendations received during its September 2006 to March 2007 public comment period. The intent of this document is to summarize and respond to comments received on the initial draft document during the September 2006 through February 2007 public comment period, and solicit additional public input on the proposed Revised Draft Framework in order to develop a final document that meets the nation's interests in the National System. When submitting comments on the Revised Draft Framework, please remember that comments submitted by e-mail are preferred; however, those submitted by mail and fax will also be accepted. Classification Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a regulatory action subject to E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Energy Effects NOAA and DOI have determined that this action will have no effect on energy supply, distribution, or use and is therefore not a “significant energy action” as defined by Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). No Statement of Energy Effects is required and therefore none has been prepared. Government to Government Relationship With Tribes *E.O. 13175* —Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments—outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government regarding its policies with tribal implications, i.e., regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Pursuant to E.O. 13175, we will consult with tribal governments as the National System is developed. Administrative Procedure Act Pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(A), prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given, as this document concerns agency procedure or practice. Nevertheless, NOAA and DOI want the benefit of the public's comment and are hereby giving prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Dated: March 6, 2008. John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5311 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RIN 0648-XF79 Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; National Marine Fisheries Service File No. 932-1905; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service File No. PRT-009526 AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP), Silver Spring, MD (Dr. Teri Rowles, Principal Investigator) has applied in due form for a permit to conduct enhancement and research activities on marine mammals. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104). Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 932-1905/PRT-009526. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Sloan or Carrie Hubard, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR parts 18 and 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 17 and 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ). The applicant requests authorization to
(1)carry out activities pursuant to section 109(h), 112(c), and Title IV of the MMPA that involve threatened and endangered marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction;
(2)harass marine mammals incidental to all MMHSRP activities in the U.S.;
(3)conduct research activities on marine mammals in the U.S.; and
(4)collect, receive, transfer, import, export, analyze, and curate marine mammal specimens. All threatened and endangered marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction are considered target species for stranding/emergency response activities. All species under NMFS jurisdiction are target species for research activities. Specimens from all species of marine mammals under NMFS or USFWS jurisdiction may be received, transferred, imported, exported, analyzed, and archived. Type and manner of take includes Level A harassment during emergency response and research activities including capture; sedation/anesthesia; biological sampling (e.g., blood, blubber, muscle, respiratory gases, swabs); and removing entangling gear/material. Level B harassment may occur from close approach, hazing away from hazardous or harmful situations, photo-identification, and aerial and vessel surveys. The number of threatened and endangered animals that may be rescued and/or sampled is dependent on the number of incidents that occur and the ability to respond. The number of marine mammals that may be involved in research annually is as follows: approximately 400 pinnipeds (all species); 200 small cetaceans (all species); and 100 large whales (all species). An unlimited number of marine mammal specimens may be received, collected, imported, or exported annually. Non-target animals that may be incidentally harassed during any MMHSRP activity in the U.S. include any marine mammal under NMFS and USFWS jurisdictions. Geographic locations of the takes could include any area in the U.S. and U.S. waters. Specimen samples may be imported/exported world-wide. The applicant has requested a 5-year permit. The NMFS MMHSRP has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321. *et seq.* ). The DEIS includes analysis of activities proposed in this permit application. The DEIS is available on the following web site: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/eis.htm* . Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: March 7, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dated: March 7, 2008. Timothy J. VanNorman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-5307 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODES 3510-22-S, 4310-55-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XG35 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings, April 1-7, 2008, in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meetings will be held on April 1, 2008 through April 7, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Witherell, Council staff, telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, April 1 continuing through Tuesday April 7, 2008. The Council's Advisory Panel
(AP)will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, March 31 and continue through Friday April 4. The Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 31 and continue through Wednesday March 2, 2008. The Enforcement Committee will meet Tuesday, April 2, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Iliamna Room. The Ecosystem Committee will meet Wednesday, April 2, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Dillingham/Katmai Room. The Council will meet Tuesday, April 8, with Alaska Board of Fisheries, and may discuss any of the items listed in this notice, or other issues involving state/federal authorities for parallel fisheries or Board proposals with federal waters relevance. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions. Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. 1. Reports Executive Director's Report NMFS Management Report (NMFS Enforcement/NOAA General Counsel) Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report U.S. Coast Guard Report U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report Protected Species Report (including Aleutian Island Pollock EFP report) 2. Steller Sea lion
(SSL)Issues: Review final SSL Recovery Plan; SSL Mitigation Committee report on proposals and preliminary recommendations on measures. 3. BSAI Crab Issues: Report from Crab Committee; Refine problem statement and elements/options for analysis of 90/10 modifications; BSAI Crab Arbitrator Immunity discussion paper; Final action on BSAI Crab Arbitration Regulations; Final action on BSAI “C” Share active participation; Final action on St. George protection measures. 4. Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Issues: Initial review of GOA sideboards for BSAI Crab vessels. 5. License Limitation Program
(LLP)Trawl Recency: Final action to eliminate latent trawl licenses/area endorsements. 6. Observer Program: Receive Observer Advisory Committee report; Final action on Observer Program regulation package. 7. Halibut Charter Management: Initial review of Charter Halibut 2C/3A Catch Sharing Plan analysis; Report on the Charter Halibut Logbook Program. 8. Bycatch Issues: Preliminary review of BSAI Salmon Bycatch Environmental Impact Statement; receive scoping report; refine problem statement/alternatives; Discussion paper on GOA Crab and Salmon Bycatch. 9. Groundfish Management: Review EFP application for Trawl Salmon Excluder; Review EFP application for CGOA Rockfish Electronic Monitoring (Phase II); Initial review of Vessel Monitoring System Exemption for dinglebar gear; Final action on GOA 'Other Species' ABC/OFL specifications; Initial review of 4E Seabird Avoidance measures (T). 10. AFA Issue: Receive action on Amendment 62/62 (single geographic location) and affirm or repeal.
(T)11. Scallop Management: Review Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation report. 12. Ecosystem Based Management: Report from Ecosystem Committee; preliminary review of Arctic FMP. (Council only) 13. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking. 14. Other Business The SSC agenda will include the following issues: 1. Steller Sea lions 2. GOA Sideboards 3. Halibut Charter 4. Salmon Bycatch 5. Groundfish Management 6. Scallop SAFE 7. Ecosystem Management 8. Crab Model Review The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council, except for #1 reports. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/* . Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 11, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5207 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Patent Examiner Employment Application (Formerly Patent Examiner Employment Application—Job Application Rating System (JARS)) ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 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 the revision of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0042 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112; marked to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • *Federal Rulemaking Portal:* 3 *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Howard Staik, Chief of the Workforce Employment Division, Office of Human Resources, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-2846; or by e-mail to *Howard.Staik@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The USA Staffing system provided by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is an automated on-line system that allows the USPTO to rapidly review applications for employment of entry-level patent examiners. The Office of Human Resources (OHR), armed with a recommendation from a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), can use the system to rapidly make an offer of employment and take the necessary administrative action to support the hiring process. In FY 2007, USA Staffing enabled the Patent Corps to hire more than 1,216 entry-level patent examiners. Since the inception of USA Staffing in January 2007, the hiring process has become more effective and compliant with the examining requirements established by OPM. In the current employment environment, information technology professionals and engineering graduates are in great demand. The USPTO is in direct competition with private industry for the same caliber of candidates with the requisite knowledge and skills to perform patent examination work. Consequently, it is imperative that every available technology be employed if the USPTO is to remain competitive, meet hiring goals, and fulfill the agency's Congressional commitment to reduce the pendency rate for the examination of patent applications. The information supplied by an applicant seeking a patent examiner position with the USPTO assists the Human Resources Specialists and hiring managers in determining whether an applicant possesses the basic qualification requirements for the patent examiner position. USA Staffing provides the USPTO with a user-friendly on-line employment application process for applicants and enables the USPTO to process hiring actions in an efficient and timely manner. The on-line application creates an electronic real-time candidate inventory that allows the USPTO to review applications from potential applicants almost instantaneously. Given the immediate hiring need of the Patent Examining Corps, time consumed in the mail distribution system or paper review of applications delays the decision-making process by several weeks. The USA Staffing system results in increased speed and accuracy in the employment process, in addition to streamlining labor and reducing costs. The use of the USA Staffing on-line application fully complies with 5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires adequate public notice to assure open competition by guaranteeing that necessary employment information will be accessible and available to the public on inquiry. It is also fully compliant with Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794(d)), which requires agencies to provide disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others. II. Method of Collection With the use of USA Staffing, the application information is collected electronically from the applicant. Applicants contact the OPM USA Jobs Web site where they will find the on-line job announcement that links them to the application. The application is completed on-line and then transmitted to the USPTO via the Internet. For those applicants who do not have access to a personal computer, applications may be faxed to the OPM computer facility for processing. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0042. *Form Number(s):* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7,000 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to complete the employment application, depending upon the situation. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 3,500 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $134,540. Using the median hourly rate for scientists and engineers of $38.44 as listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the USPTO estimates $134,540 per year in cost burden associated with respondents. This is a fully-loaded hourly rate. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Patent Examiner Employment Application 30 minutes 7,000 3,500 Total 7,000 3,500 *Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden:* $0. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or record keeping costs, as well as no filing fees associated with this information collection. However there are annual (non-hour) costs in the form of postage costs. Not every applicant can supply all of the required information electronically. The applicant does have the option to submit a `Paper Qualifications Questionnaire' and any supporting documents, such as resumes to the USPTO either by fax, mail or in person. The transcripts and other supporting materials are submitted to the USPTO the same way. These additional documents may be submitted to the USPTO by first-class mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage is 97 cents. Therefore the USPTO estimates that it will receive 7,000 responses per year, for a total cost of $6,790 (7,000 × $0.97) in postage fees. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: March 10, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-5277 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: DoD. ACTION: Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Army Education Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense to provide the Department of Defense, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army independent advice and recommendations in matters pertaining to the educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of the U.S. Army's educational programs, including activities of the U.S. Army's joint professional military education programs. The Committee, in accomplishing its mission:
(a)Provides advice to their supported schools;
(b)assist in the maintenance of the highest academic standards; and
(c)ensure that Army educational policies and techniques are current and equal to those used in the finest institutions of higher education. The Committee shall be composed of not more than 15 members, who are distinguished members of the field of defense, management, leadership, and academia. Committee members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. Committee members shall be appointed on an annual basis by the Secretary of Defense. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs or designated representative shall serve as the Chairperson, and shall serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Army or designated representative. In addition, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Army or designated representative may invite other distinguished Government officers to serve as non-voting observers of the Committee, and appoint consultants with special expertise to assist the Committee on an ad hoc basis. Committee members shall with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation. The Committee shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, and other appropriate federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Committee, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Committee nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not Committee members. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee shall meet at the call of the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Committee's chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Army Education Advisory Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Army Education Advisory Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Army Education Advisory Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Army Education Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp* . The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Army Education Advisory Committee. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-2554, extension 128. Dated: March 11, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-5312 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2008-OS-0024] Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records AGENCY: DoD; Defense Finance and Accounting Service. ACTION: Notice to add a new system of records. SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS)is proposing to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This Action will be effective without further notice on April 16, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FOIA/PA Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Krabbenhoft at
(303)676-6045. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 5, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated December 12, 2000, 65 FR 239. Dated: March 10, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. T-1430 System name: Mentoring Program. System location: Triple Creek Associates, Inc., 7730 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 200A, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-6617. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Department of Finance and Accounting System
(DFAS)civilian employees. Categories of records in the system: Name, address, Social Security Number (SSN), e-mail address, work phone, location, organization, job series, and grade, years of experience at DFAS, total years of work experience. Authority for the maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 5 U.S.C. 1402, and Department of Defense Instruction
(DoDI)1430.02, Civilian Career Management. Purpose(s): The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS)is proposing to establish a system of records to provide DFAS civilian employees with an automated mentoring system which will match mentees with potential mentors based on mentee need and mentor capabilities and experience. The system will facilitate the tracking and management of the DFAS mentoring relationships. Routine use of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: To DFAS contractors who serve as the agent for the Agency for the purpose of managing the DFAS web-based mentoring program. It may also be disclosed for any of the DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” as published at the beginning of the DFAS compilation of systems of record notices. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are maintained in an electronic database. Retrievability: By individual's name. Safeguards: The system is a Web-based system and it is maintained by a DoD contractor on a contractor owned computer server. The data is protected by dedicated firewalls and web servers that are physically separated from other contractor database servers. The database resides behind a firewall, is not publicly accessible, and a distinct database instance is used for this system. The contractor employs constant proactive monitoring, including port monitoring to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or otherwise cause damage to the system. The server is located in a secured facility with limited access. In accordance with the contract, the contractor is not to remove any of the data from the contracting site, and the contractor must follow the DoD safeguarding policies, and regulations as defined in the contract. The contractor is to ensure confidentiality of all data, and it will be shared with only those individuals who have a need-to-know. Retention and disposal: Destroy when 5 years old or when superseded or obsolete, whichever is sooner. System manager(s) and address: DFAS Mentoring and Coaching Program Manager, Learning and Development Division, 8899 E. 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-0160. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, and telephone number. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, and telephone number. Contesting record procedures: The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; CFR part 324; or may be obtained from Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/ Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Record source categories: From the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS) and the individual concerned. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-5308 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense [DoD-2008-OS-0028] Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DOD. ACTION: Notice to Add a New System of Records. SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS)is proposing to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This action will be effective without further notice on April 16, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FOIA/PA Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Krabbenhoft at
(303)676-6045. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 5, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, `Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,' dated December 12, 2000, 65 FR 239. Dated: March 10, 2008. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. T-7300 System name: Defense Disbursing Analysis Reporting System (DDARS). System location: Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Indianapolis, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, OH 46249-0160. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Department of Defense civilian employees. Categories of records in the system: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), accounting transactions, and travel pay transactions. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations, 31 U.S.C. 3512, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR) 7000.14-R Vols. 6A and 6B, and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS)is proposing to establish an Internet based system designed to allow users a single point of entry to view, reconcile, research and report disbursement and accounting data from a centralized repository. The system will track, control and report disbursement and accounting transactions to various DFAS sites. The system, by automated system interface, file feed, and manual input, will validate appropriation data and route the transactions to the designated accounting operations team to be processed into one of several accounting systems. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DOD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The `DoD Blanket Routine Uses' published at the beginning of the DFAS compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are maintained in electronic storage media. Retrievability: By individual's name and Social Security Number (SSN). Safeguards: Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to records is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for a need-to-know. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed according to agency security policy. Retention and disposal: Records are cutoff at the end of the fiscal year and destroyed 6 years and 3 months after cutoff. Records are destroyed by degaussing, shredding or burning. System manager(s) and address: Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Columbus, System Management Directorate, 3990 East Broad Street, Building 21, Columbus, OH 43213-1152. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about them are contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, and telephone number. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about them contained in this system should address written inquiries to Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, and telephone number. Contesting record procedures: The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained from Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Record source categories: From the individual concerned and DoD Components. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-5306 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE United States Marine Corps; Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: United States Marine Corps, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of Records Notices. SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps is deleting a system of records notices from its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). DATES: Effective March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/PA Section (CMC-ARSE), 2 Navy Annex, Room 1005, Washington, DC 20380-1775. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracy D. Ross at
(703)614-4008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps' records systems notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to delete a system of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes to the system of records are not within the purview of subsection
(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports. Dated: March 10, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Deletions MMC00005 System Name: Insurance Files. Reason: The system does not collect any personal information, only business information. [FR Doc. E8-5328 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE [USN-2008-0014] U.S. Marine Corps; Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: U.S. Marine Corps, DOD. ACTION: Notice to Add a System of Records. SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps is proposing to add a new system of records notice to its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on April 16, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/PA Section (ARSF), 2 Navy Annex, Room 3134, Washington, DC 20380-1775. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracy Ross at
(703)614-4008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps system of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 5, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Dated: March 11, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. M01070-6 System name: Marine Corps Official Military Personnel Files. System location: Primary Location: For the Official Military Personnel File
(OMPF)records of active regular and reserve members, those members who are on the Temporary Disability Retired List, and those members who retired, separated, died while in service, or with a remaining military service obligation after December 31, 1997, or later: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (Code MMSB), 2008 Elliot Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5030. For OMPF records of members who retired, separated, or died while in service, prior to 1998: National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100. Secondary Locations: For OQRs/SRBs records of Marine Corps Inactive Ready Reserve
(IRR)members: Commanding General, Marine Corps Mobilization Command, 15303 Andrews Road, Kansas City, MO 64147-1207. For OQRs/SRBs records of Marine Corps officers or enlisted members: The duty Commanding Officer who has responsibility for the administration of the records. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . Categories of individuals covered by the system: Active duty and Corps Inactive Ready Reserve
(IRR)members who are enlisted, appointed, or commissioned status; members of the U.S. Marine Corps who were enlisted, appointed, or commissioned status and were separated by discharge, death, or other termination of military status. Categories of records in the system: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), enlistment contract, Department of Veterans Affairs benefit forms, physical evaluation board proceedings, military occupational specialty data, statement of service, qualification record, group life insurance election, emergency data, application for appointment, qualification/evaluation report, oath of office, medical examination, security clearance questionnaire, application/memo for retired pay, application for correction of military records, field/application for active duty, transfer or discharge report/Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, active duty report, voluntary reduction, line of duty and misconduct determinations, discharge or separation reviews, police record checks, consent/declaration of parent/guardian, Army Reserve Officers Training Corps supplemental agreement, award recommendations, academic reports, line of duty casualty report, U.S. field medical card, retirement points, deferment, pre-induction processing and commissioning data, transcripts of military records, summary sheets review of conscientious objector, options election, oath of enlistment, enlistment extensions, survivor benefit plans, efficiency reports, records of proceeding, 10 U.S.C. section 815 appellate actions, determinations of moral eligibility, waiver of disqualifications, temporary disability record, change of name, statements for enlistment, acknowledgments of service requirements, retired benefits, application for review by physical evaluation and disability boards, appointments, designations, evaluations, birth certificates, citizenship statements and status, educational constructive credit transcripts, flight status board reviews, assignment agreements, limitations/waivers/election and travel reports, efficiency appeals, promotion/reduction/recommendations, approvals/declinations announcements/notifications, reconsiderations/worksheets elections/letters or memoranda of notification to deferred officers and promotion passover notifications, absence without leave and desertion records, FBI reports, Social Security Administration correspondence, miscellaneous correspondence, documents, military orders relating to military service including information pertaining to dependents, interservice action and in service details, determinations, reliefs, component, awards, pay entitlement, and other military service data, commendatory and derogatory material, performance evaluations for E5s and above, photographs, and other documents considered significant to document a Marine's military history. Authority for maintenance of the system: 10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, Marine Corps; 42 U.S.C. 10606 as implemented by DoD Instruction 1030.1, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): To assist officials and employees of the U.S. Marine Corps in the management, supervision, and administration of Marine Corps personnel (officer and enlisted), and the operations of related personnel affairs and functions. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: To officials and employees of the National Research Council in Cooperative Studies of the National History of Disease, of Prognosis and of Epidemiology. Each study in which the records of members and former members of the Marine Corps service are used must be approved by the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. To the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for use in alien admission and naturalization inquiries. To officials and employees of the Coast Guard in the performance of their official duties relating to screening members who have expressed a positive interest in an interservice transfer, enlistment, appointment, or acceptance. To Secret Service agents in connection with matters under the jurisdiction of that agency upon presentation of credentials. To the Office of Personnel Management for verification of military service for benefits, leave, or reduction-in-force purposes, and to establish Civil Service employee tenure and leave accrual rate. To the Director of Selective Service System in the performance of official duties related to registration with the Selective Service System. To the Social Security Administration to obtain or verify Social Security Numbers or to substantiate applicant's credit for social security compensation. To officials and employees of the American Red Cross and Navy Relief Society in the performance of their duties. Access will be limited to those portions of the member's record required to effectively assist the member. To officials and employees of the Sergeants at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in the performance of official duties related to the verification of Marine Corps service. Access will be limited to those portions of the member's record required to verify service time, active, and reserve. To officials and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, and Selective Service Administration in the performance of their official duties related to eligibility, notification, and assistance in obtaining benefits by members and former members of the Marine Corps. To officials and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the performance of their official duties relating to approved research projects. To officials and employees of other Departments and Agencies of the Executive Branch of government, upon request, in performance of their official duties related to the management, supervision, and administration of members and former members of the Marine Corps. To Federal agencies, their contractors and grantees, and to private organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences, for the purposes of conducting personnel and/or health-related research in the interest of the Federal government and the public. When not considered mandatory, the names and other identifying data will be eliminated from records used for such research studies. To officials and employees of Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society and the American Red Cross in the performance of their duties relating to the assistance of the members and their dependents and relatives, or related to assistance previously furnished such individuals, without regard to whether the individual assisted or his/her sponsor continues to be a member of the Marine Corps. Access will be limited to those portions of the member's record required to effectively assist the member. To duly appointed Family Ombudsmen and Key Volunteers in the performance of their duties related to the assistance of the members and their families. To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information consistent with the Victim and Witness Assistance Program and the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense. Access will be limited to information concerning the processing and final disposition, results of any criminal or adverse proceeding (e.g., court-martial, non-judicial punishment, administrative separation), with the exception of victims and witnesses identified as protected persons on a Military Protective Order, who may receive a copy of the Military Protective Order. Information as to current military addresses and assignments may be provided to military banking facilities who provide banking services overseas and who are reimbursed by the Government for certain checking and loan losses. For personnel separated, discharged, or retired from the Armed Forces information as to last known residential or home of record address may be provided to the military banking facility upon certification by a banking facility officer that the facility has a returned or dishonored check negotiated by the individual or the individual has defaulted on a loan and that if restitution is not made by the individual the United States Government will be liable for the losses the facility may incur. To other governmental entities or private organizations under government contract to perform random analytical research into specific aspects of military personnel management and administrative procedures. The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the Marine Corps compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media. Retrievability: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), and/or service number. Safeguards: Records are maintained in secure, limited access, or monitored areas. Physical entry by unauthorized persons is restricted through the use of locks, guards, passwords, or other administrative procedures. Access to personal information is limited to those individuals who require the records to perform their official assigned duties. Retention and disposal: Official Military Personnel File records are permanent. Records of Marines who separated, retired, or whose military service obligation expired prior to 1 January 1998 are maintained at the National Personnel Records Center, 9700 Page Avenue, St Louis, MO 63132-5100. The records of Marines with remaining military service obligation or contractual obligations after 31 December 1997 are maintained at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Marine Corps (Code MMSB), 2008 Elliot Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5030. Permanent records are transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)62 years after the completion of the service member's obligated service. For Official Military Personnel File records of Marine Corps members in the regular or reserve components as of 1 January 1998 or those members who separated, retired, or died while in service, in the year 1998 or later are maintained at the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records Branch, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100. System manager(s) and address: Commandant of the Marine Corps, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, DC 20380-1775. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the following officials: Inquiries regarding permanent Official Military Personnel File records of all active duty and reserve members, former members discharged, deceased, or retired after 31 December 1997 should be addressed to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code MMSB), Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 2008 Elliot Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5030. Inquiries regarding field Service Record Books/Officer Qualification Records of reserve members serving in the Individual Ready Reserve should be addressed to the Commanding General, Marine Corps Mobilization Command, 15303 Andrews Road, Kansas City, MO 64147-1207. Inquiries regarding Official Military Personnel File records of former members discharged, deceased, or retired before 1 January 1998 should be addressed to the Director, National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100. Veterans and relatives of deceased veterans may obtain information on how to obtain copies of records from the NPRC Web site at *http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/index.html* . Inquiries regarding field Service Record Books/Officer Qualification Records of current members should be addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps unit to which they are attached. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . Requests should contain the member's full name, Social Security Number
(SSN)(and/or enlisted or officer service number), rank/rate, approximate dates of service, address, and signature of the requester. Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), discharge certificate, driver's license, or other data sufficient to ensure that the member is the subject of the record. Current members (active and reserve) and former members may visit any of the above activities for review of records. Proof of identification will be required and may consist of an individual's active, reserve, or retired identification card, Armed Forces Report of. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written requests to the following officials: Inquiries regarding permanent Official Military Personnel File records of all active duty and reserve members, former members discharged, deceased, or retired after 31 December 1997 should be addressed to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code MMSB), Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 2008 Elliot Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5030. Inquiries regarding field Service Record Books/Officer Qualification Records of reserve members serving in the Individual Ready Reserve should be addressed to the Commanding General, Marine Corps Mobilization Command, 15303 Andrews Road, Kansas City, MO 64147-1207. Inquiries regarding Official Military Personnel File records of former members discharged, deceased, or retired before 1 January 1998 should be addressed to the Director, National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100. Veterans and relatives of deceased veterans may obtain information on how to obtain copies of records from the National Personnel Records Center Web site at *http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/index.html* . Inquiries regarding field Service Record Books/Officer Qualification Records of current members should be addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps unit to which they are attached. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . Requests should contain the member's full name, Social Security Number
(SSN)(and/or enlisted or officer service number), rank/rate, approximate dates of service, address, and signature of the requester. Current members (active and reserve) and former members may visit any of the above activities for review of records. Proof of identification will be required and may consist of an individual's active, reserve, or retired identification card, Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), discharge certificate, driver's license, or other data sufficient to ensure that the member is the subject of the record. Contesting record procedures: The USMC rules for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; Marine Corps Order P5211.2; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager. Record source categories: Staff agencies and subdivisions of Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; Marine Corps commands and organizations; other agencies of federal, state, and local government; medical reports; correspondence from financial and other commercial enterprises; correspondence and records of educational institutions; correspondence of private citizens addressed directly to the Marine Corps or via the U.S. Congress and other agencies; investigations to determine suitability for enlistment, security clearances, and special assignments; investigations related to disciplinary proceedings; and the individual of the record. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-5349 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions), the Department of the Navy
(Navy)announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
(OEIS)to evaluate the potential environmental effects of conducting Navy training in and around the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), including participation in large-scale Joint exercises, to support Fleet training exercise requirements. The Navy will invite the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to be cooperating agencies in preparation of this EIS/OEIS. DATES AND ADDRESSES: Three public scoping meetings will be held to receive oral and/or written comments on environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Each of the three scoping meetings will consist of an informal, open house session with information stations staffed by Navy representatives. The public scoping meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at Kodiak Best Western, 236 W. Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615, 2. Wednesday, April 2, 2008, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at Kincaid Outdoor Center, North Assembly Room, 9401 W. Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99502, 3. Thursday, April 3, 2008, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at Mt. Eccles Elementary School, 200 Adams Street, Cordova, AK 99574. Details of the meeting locations and times will be announced in local newspapers. Additional information concerning meeting times will be available on the EIS/OEIS Web page located at: *http://www.GulfofAlaskaNavyEIS.com* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Amy Burt, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101, Attn: GOA Navy Training Activities EIS/OEIS Project Manager, Code EV1.AB, telephone number: 360-396-0924. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed EIS/OEIS analyzes potential environmental effects of Navy training activities that will take place in and around the Gulf of Alaska and those aircraft events that originate in the maritime exercise area
(MEA)and extend over established inland Alaska military operating areas. Navy training activities primarily take place in, or originate from, the MEA. The MEA provides approximately 42,000 nm 2 (144,056 km 2 ) of air and surface/subsurface ocean operating area and overlying airspace. The MEA is a polygon that is oriented from northwest to southeast, approximately 300 nm in length by 150 nm in width, situated south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, Alaska. The EIS/OEIS study area includes Gulf of Alaska ocean area within approximately 200 km from the MEA and the waters within this boundary up to the coastline. Military operations also occur over established land-based Military Operating Areas maintained by the Air Force in Alaska. These Alaska training areas are used to conduct Navy training, including participating in large-scale Joint training exercises such as the annual Northern Edge exercise, involving military hardware, personnel, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic combat. Alaska is an ideal location to support naval and joint operational readiness by providing the maritime component to a “geographically realistic” range for U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) scenario-based training. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
(1)Support PACOM and NORTHCOM training requirements;
(2)achieve and maintain Fleet readiness using these Alaska training areas to support and conduct current, emerging, and future training activities;
(3)accommodate new training requirements associated with the introduction of new weapons and systems to the Fleet; and
(4)support civilian authorities in homeland defense training exercises. The need for the Proposed Action is to:
(1)Maintain current levels of military readiness;
(2)accommodate future increases in training activities to support Fleet exercise requirements in the Alaska training areas;
(3)support the acquisition and implementation into the Fleet of advanced military technology; and
(4)maintain the long-term viability of the Alaska training areas as a Navy training area while protecting human health and the environment, and enhancing the quality and the capabilities of the training area, including safety. The No Action Alternative is the continuation of current training levels, with one carrier strike group per exercise, to exclude the use of mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS). Alternative 1 consists of an increase in the number of training activities from baseline levels, to include the use of MFAS, plus training associated with the introduction of new weapon systems, vessels, and aircraft into the Fleet. Alternative 2 consists of all elements of Alternative 1, plus the addition of a second summertime carrier strike group exercise each year, to include the use of MFAS. Environmental issues that will be addressed in the EIS/OEIS include but are not limited to the following: Air quality; airspace; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazardous materials and waste; health and safety; noise; socioeconomics; transportation and water resources. The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues that will be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Federal, state, and local agencies, Alaska Native Federally-Recognized Tribes, the public, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the Navy to identify specific environmental issues or topics of environmental concern that the commenter believes the Navy should consider. All comments, written or provided orally at the scoping meetings, will receive the same consideration during EIS/OEIS preparation. Written comments on the scope of the EIS/OEIS should be postmarked no later than April 30, 2008. Comments may be mailed to: Mrs. Amy Burt, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101, Attn: GOA Navy Training Activities EIS/OEIS Project Manager, Code EV1.AB. Comments can also be submitted via the EIS/OEIS Web page located at *http://www.GulfofAlaskaNavyEIS.com* . Dated: March 11, 2008. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5316 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection package with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)concerning *Collection of Human Resource information from major DOE contractors for contract management, administration, and cost control.* Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)Ways to enhance 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. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 16, 2008. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: Robert M. Myers, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1615, 202-287-1584, or by fax at 202-287-1656 or by e-mail at *robert.myers@hq.doe.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Robert Myers at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains:
(1)*OMB No.* 1910-0600;
(2)*Package Title:* Industrial Relations;
(3)*Type of Review:* Renewal;
(4)*Purpose:* This information is required for management oversight for the Department of Energy's Facilities Management Contractors and to ensure that the programmatic and administrative management requirements of the contract are managed efficiently and effectively;
(5)*Respondents:* 349;
(6)*Estimated Number of Burden Hours:* 8,173. Statutory Authority: The basic authority for collection of this data is the statute establishing the Department of Energy (“Department of Energy Organization Act,” Public Law 95-91, of August 4, 1977). It vests the Secretary of Energy with the executive direction and management function, authority, and responsibilities for the Department, including contract management. The provisions of 42 U.S.C. 7254 state that “The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such procedural and administrative rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or appropriate to administer and manage the functions now or hereafter vested in him.” Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 2008. Edward R. Simpson, Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management. [FR Doc. E8-5267 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction (Act of 1995), intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance 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. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 16, 2008. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to Elnora Long, U.S. Department of Energy, EE-2K/Forestal Building; 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax 202-586-1233 or by e-mail at *elnora.long@ee.doe.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Elnora Long at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request contains:
(1)*OMB No.* 1910-5126
(2)*Information Collection Request Title:* State Energy Program;
(3)*Type of Review:* Renewal;
(4)*Purpose:* The State Energy Program purpose is to promote the conservation of energy; to reduce the rate of growth of energy demand and to reduce dependence on imported oil through the development and implementation of a comprehensive State Energy Program and the provision of Federal financial and technical assistance to States in support of such program.
(5)*Respondents:* 56 States and Territories;
(6)*Estimated Number of Burden Hours:* Burden is estimated at nine hours per state/territory totaling 504 hours. Statutory Authority: This collection of information is in accordance with 10 CFR part 420. Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 2008. Ronald Shaw, Acting Program Manager, Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E8-5268 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (of 1995), intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Department of Energy
(DOE)Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP)is a formula grant funding program. DOE has developed four forms designed to reduce the length of time to input information and provide a consistent format for all States to submit as part of their State Application and Plan process. This activity will benefit the program and States because all forms are in electronic format that will populate a database for program information. The program information captured will be used to provide the most current program information for the budget, congressional and public inquires of the program. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance 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. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 16, 2008. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: Elnora Long, U.S. Department of Energy, EE-2-K/Forestal Building; 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at 202-586-1233 or by e-mail at *elnora.long@ee.doe.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Elnora Long at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request contains:
(1)*OMB No.* 1910-5127
(2)*Information Collection Request Title:* Weatherization Assistance Program;
(3)*Type of Review:* Renewal;
(4)*Purpose:* The Weatherization Assistance Program provides grants to States, the District of Columbia and Native American Tribes; *Type of Respondents:* States, District of Columbia, and Native American Tribes;
(5)*Respondents:* 52;
(6)*Estimated Number of Burden Hours:* 3 hours per Respondent. Statutory Authority: 10 CFR part 440. Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 2008. Ronald Shaw, Acting Program Manager, Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E8-5270 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL07-86-003, EL07-88-003, EL07-92-003, EL07-100-002] Ameren Services Company and Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Complainant v. Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Great Lakes Utilities, et al., Complainant v. Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Wabash Valley Power Assoc., Inc., Complainant v. Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; E.ON. U.S. LLC, Complainant v. Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Filing March 10, 2008. Take notice that on March 3, 2008, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) filed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff reflecting an alternative mechanism for allocating Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee charges and costs (consistent with Midwest ISO's February 1, 2008 informational filing). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll-free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5233 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-11-002] TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd. v. ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Filing March 10, 2008. Take notice that on March 3, 2008, in compliance with the Commission's January 4, 2008 Order, *TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd.* v. *ISO New England Inc.* , 122 FERC ¶ 61,010 (2008), ISO New England Inc. filed tariff sheets containing revisions to Section III.13.1.6 of the Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff, FERC Electric No. 3. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll-free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5234 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-36-000] Chestnut Ridge Storage L.P.; Notice of Public Scoping Meeting and Site Visit for the Proposed Junction Natural Gas Storage Project March 10, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit for the Junction Natural Gas Storage Project involving construction and operation of natural gas storage and pipeline header facilities by Chestnut Ridge Storage L.P. in Fayette County, Pennsylvania and Preston and Monongalia Counties, West Virginia. Further description of the project was provided in our *Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Junction Natural Gas Storage Project* , issued on January 28, 2008. Additional information about the project, including maps, is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, then on “General Search” and enter the docket number—CP08-36. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. We invite you to attend a public scoping meeting on Thursday evening, March 27, 2008, to provide environmental comments on the proposed project. Your input will help us determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the environmental assessment. The public scoping meeting will be held at: Volunteer Fire Department Social Hall, 31 Pittsburgh Street, Fairchance, PA 15436, Phone: 724-564-9103, Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m. The Commission staff also will conduct a site visit of the location of the proposed facilities on Friday, March 28, 2008. Anyone interested in participating in the site visit may attend, and they must provide their own transportation. The staff will start the site visit on March 28 at approximately 9 a.m. The Commission staff, company representatives, and interested participants will meet in the parking lot at the following location: Saints Cyril & Methodius Church, 50 N Morgantown Street, Fairchance, PA 15436, time: 9 a.m. (EST). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5232 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RC07-4-002, RC07-6-002, l RC07-7-002] Direct Energy Services, LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions, LLC; Strategic Energy, LLC; Notice of Filing March 11, 2008. Take notice that on March 4, 2008, The North American Electric Reliability Corporation filed a compliance filing in response to the Commission's December 20, 2007 Order, *Direct Energy Services, LLC, et al.* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,274 (2007). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 25, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5253 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-45-000] New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing March 11, 2008. Take notice that on March 10, 2008, The New York Independent System Operator, Inc (NYISO) filed a request for limited tariff waiver of Section 5.13.1 of the Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff and grant any other relief as necessary to enable the NYISO to post results of the April Monthly Auction on March 14, 2008 and close the certification period for April on March 20, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll-free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 18, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5254 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PR08-17-000] Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval March 10, 2008. Take notice that on February 29, 2008, Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd. (Bay Gas) submitted for filing its proposal to charge a lost-an-unaccounted-for
(LAUF)reimbursement percentage of 0.96 percent. Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll-free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5231 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-44-000] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Complainant, v. Accord Energy LLC, BJ Energy LLC, Franklin Power LLC, GLE Trading LLC, Ocean Power LLC, Pillar Fund LLC, Power Edge LLC, Tower Research Capital LLC, Tower Research Capital Investments LLC, Respondents; Notice of Complaint March 10, 2008. Take notice that on March 7, 2008, PJM Interconnection, LLC
(PJM)filed a formal complaint against Accord Energy LLC, BJ Energy LLC, Franklin Power LLC, GLE Trading LLC, Ocean Power LLC, Pillar Fund LLC, Power Edge LLC, Tower Research Capital LLC, and Tower Research Capital Investments LLC (collectively, Respondents), pursuant to sections 206, 222, and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 824v, and 825e and 18 CFR 385.206, alleging that the Respondents engaged in conduct and committed actions to manipulate the PJM market in violation of the Commission's prohibitions against market manipulation, and that Respondents should be required to disgorge unjust revenues and provide refunds, and be investigated for civil penalties. PJM certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondents. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5235 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request for Permission To Withdraw Tariff Filing March 11, 2008. Take notice that on March 3, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) requests permission from the FERC to withdraw in its entirety Columbia's proposed tariff sheet filing in the approved referenced docket made on November 7, 2007. Columbia contends that good cause exists justifying such a withdrawal and that withdrawing the proceeding will ensure that Columbia, Commission Staff, and the parties will no longer expend valuable resources litigating the tariff proposals contained in Columbia's November 7, 2007 Rate Schedule SIT filing. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing in the above proceeding is accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets. For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5252 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD08-1-004] Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical Conference March 10, 2008. In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual Charges Bill Appeals and Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures (109 FERC ¶ 61,040), the Commission set forth an annual deadline for Other Federal Agencies
(OFAs)to submit their costs related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. The Commission required the OFAs to submit their costs by December 31st of each fiscal year using the OFA Cost Submission Form. The order also announced that a technical conference would be held for the purpose of reviewing the submitted cost forms and detailed supporting documentation. The Commission will hold a technical conference for reviewing the submitted OFA costs. The purpose of the conference will be for OFAs and licensees to discuss costs reported in the forms and any other supporting documentation or analyses. The Conference will be held on March 27, 2008, in Conference Room 3M-4A/B at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. The conference will begin at 2 p.m. (EST). The technical conference will also be transcribed. Those interested in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should contact the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at 202-347-3700, or 1-800-336-6646. Two weeks after the post-forum meeting, the transcript will be available for free on the Commission's e-library system. Anyone without access to the Commission's Web site or who has questions about the technical conference should contact Troy Cole at
(202)502-6161 or via e-mail at *annualcharges@ferc.gov.* FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free
(866)208-3372 (voice),
(202)208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5236 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607; FRL-8542-8] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Performance Measurement Reporting for Training and Education/Outreach; EPA ICR No. 2255.01 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by email to *oei.docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: Office of Environmental Information
(OEI)Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hanlon, Office of Grants and Debarment, Mail Code: 3903R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2865; fax number: 202-565-2468; email address: *hanlon.brian@epa.gov* ; or Peggy Anthony, Office of Grants and Debarment, Mail Code: 3903R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-5364; fax number: 202-565-2470, email address: *anthony.peggy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 20, 2007, (72 FR 39805), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202-566-1752. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Performance Measurement Reporting for Training and Education/Outreach. *ICR Number:* EPA ICR No. 2255.01. *ICR Status:* This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* EPA has developed some generic reporting tools to supplement the existing performance reports submitted by assistance agreement recipients under 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31. The new reporting tools are designed to collect performance measurement information on two types of activities performed by assistance agreement recipients: training and education/outreach. Specifically, EPA has created generic questions and reporting formats that will be made available to the EPA programs and assistance agreement recipients. The tools are designed to measure the extent to which the assistance agreement recipients achieve the short-term and intermediate outcomes stated in their work plans for trainings and education/outreach. The questions and formats are flexible enough for use by any of the EPA programs. An assistance agreement recipient would review the reporting formats and generic questions, select the format and questions that are appropriate for its needs, and assemble them into a questionnaire. The recipient would then submit its proposed questionnaire and supporting materials to EPA, which would forward them to OMB after a review for completeness and compliance. After receiving OMB approval through an expedited clearance process, the assistance agreement recipient would distribute the questionnaire and collect, tally, and report the responses to EPA. Use of the forms would not be required, but used at the discretion of the responsible program and assistance agreement recipients. EPA has created a generic ICR that addresses the reporting tools. Upon OMB approval of the ICR, EPA program offices and their assistance agreement recipients would be able to prepare questionnaires using the tools and submit the questionnaires and supporting materials for expedited OMB approval. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be six hours per assistance agreement. This includes time for preparing the questionnaire and related materials for OMB approval, and collecting, summarizing, and reporting the results to EPA. The annual public reporting burden is estimated to range from five to 10 minutes for an individual to complete a questionnaire. There is no public recordkeeping burden for this information collection. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action include assistance agreement recipients that perform training and/or education and outreach. *Estimated average annual number of assistance agreements affected:* Between 480 and 720. *Estimated annual frequency of response:* Quarterly or less often. *Estimated annual average number of responses for each assistance agreement:* 4. *Estimated total annual respondent burden hours:* 12,024 hours. *Estimated total annual respondent costs:* $341,413. This includes an estimated labor cost of $341,413 and $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Dated: March 11, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-5284 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8542-7] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq.* ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund
(202)566-1682, or email at *westlund.rick@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request
(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR Number 1764.04; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 59, subpart C; was approved 02/08/2008; OMB Number 2060-0348; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 0222.08; EPA's In-Use Vehicle and Engine Testing Programs (Renewal); was approved 02/08/2008; OMB Number 2060-0086; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1080.12; NESHAP for Benzene Emission from Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke By-product Recovery Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 61, subpart L; was approved 02/14/2008; OMB Number 2060-0185; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1854.06; ICR For NSPS Subparts VV and VVa: Equipment Leaks Of VOC In Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI); in 40 CFR part 61, subparts BB, Y, and V, 40 CFR part 60 subparts Ka, Kb, VV, VVa, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR, 40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H, and I, and 40 CFR part 65; was approved 02/14/2008; OMB Number 2060-0443; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 0328.14; NESHAP for Benzene Emission from Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke By-product Recovery Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 61, subpart L; was approved 02/14/2008; OMB Number 2060-0185; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1136.09; NSPS for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ; was approved 02/21/2008; OMB Number 2060-0172; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1860.03; Mercury Educator's Toolkit Survey Generic Information Collection; was approved 02/25/2008; OMB Number 2020-0015. EPA ICR Number 1086.08; NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL; was approved 02/25/2008; OMB Number 2060-0120; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1730.06; NSPS for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec; was approved 02/25/2008; OMB Number 2060-0363; expires 02/28/2011. EPA ICR Number 1363.15; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Form R) (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 372; was approved 03/02/2008; OMB Number 2070-0093; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1704.09; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts (Form A) (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 372; was approved 03/02/2008; OMB Number 2070-0143; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1360.08; Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 280, and 281; was approved 03/02/2008; OMB Number 2050-0068; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1572.07; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements and Special Waste Processes and Types (Renewal); in 40 CFR 265.1063, 40 CFR 265.1064, 40 CFR 265.11, 40 CFR 265.1101, 40 CFR 265.19, 40 CFR 265.191, 40 CFR 265.192, 40 CFR 265.225, 40 CFR 264.1035, 40 CFR 264.1036, 40 CFR 264.1034, 40 CFR 264.1061, 40 CFR 264.1062, 40 CFR 264.1063, 40 CFR 264.1064, 40 CFR 264.1065, 40 CFR 264.11, 40 CFR 264.1101, 40 CFR 264.19, 40 CFR 264.191, 40 CFR 264.196, 40 CFR 264.227, 40 CFR 264.254, 40 CFR 264.276, 40 CFR 264.28, 40 CFR 264.314, 40 CFR 264.343, 40 CFR 264.347, 40 CFR 264.57, 40 CFR 264.571, 40 CFR 264.573, 40 CFR 264.574, 40 CFR 264.603, 40 CFR 265.1033, 40 CFR 265.1034, 40 CFR 265.1035, 40 CFR 265.1061, 40 CFR 265.1062, 40 CFR 265.193, 40 CFR 265.196, 40 CFR 265.221, 40 CFR 265.222, 40 CFR 265.223, 40 CFR 264.253(b), (c), 40 CFR 264.278(a)-(f), (h), 40 CFR 265.226, 40 CFR 265.229, 40 CFR 265.254, 40 CFR 265.255, 40 CFR 264.278(g), 40 CFR 265.259, 40 CFR 265.26, 40 CFR 265.276, 40 CFR 265.278, 40 CFR 265.28, 40 CFR 265.301, 40 CFR 265.302, 40 CFR 265.303, 40 CFR 265.304, 40 CFR 265.314, 40 CFR 265.34, 40 CFR 265.352, 40 CFR 265.383, 40 CFR 265.404, 40 CFR 265.44, 40 CFR 265.441, 40 CFR 265.443, 40 CFR 265.444, 40 CFR 264.1033(j), 40 CFR 264.113(e), 40 CFR 264.192(g), 40 CFR 264.193(i), 40 CFR 264.197(b), 40 CFR 264.222(b), 40 CFR 264.223(b), (c), 40 CFR 264.226(c), 40 CFR 264.226(d), 40 CFR 264.252(b), 40 CFR 264.302(b), 40 CFR 264.303(b), 40 CFR 264.304(b), (c), 40 CFR 265.113(e), 40 CFR 265.197(b), 40 CFR 266.70(c); was approved 03/02/2008; OMB Number 2050-0050; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1755.08; Regulatory Reinvention Pilots (Renewal); was approved 03/07/2008; OMB Number 2010-0026; expires 03/31/2011. Comment and Continue EPA ICR Number 0328.14; Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC)Plans Rule (Proposed Rule); on 02/14/2008 OMB filed comment. EPA ICR Number 2276.01; PSD for PM 2.5 (Proposed Rule); on 02/15/2008 OMB filed comment. Dated: March 11, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-5285 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204; FRL-8542-9] Board of Scientific Counselors, Land Research Program Mid-Cycle Review Meetings—Spring 2008 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of three meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC)Land Mid-Cycle Subcommittee. DATES: The first meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Friday, April 18, 2008, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. EDT. The second meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Thursday, April 24, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT. The third meeting (face-to-face meeting) will be held on Thursday, May 8, 2008 from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. CDT. The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meetings will be accepted up to 1 business day before each meeting. ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference calls will be by teleconference only—meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the calls from Heather Drumm, whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The face to face meeting will be held at the Springhill Suites, 24 Via de Luna, Pensacola Beach, FL 32561. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204. • *Fax:* Fax comments to:
(202)566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204. • *Mail:* Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors, Land Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204. • *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0204. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors, Land Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Heather Drumm, Mail Drop 8104-R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202)564-8239; via fax at:
(202)565-2911; or via e-mail at: *drumm.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at either meeting may contact Heather Drumm, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. Proposed agenda items for the meetings include, but are not limited to: *Teleconference #1:* the objectives of the review; a summary of major changes in the Land research program since 2005; update on the revised Land Multi-Year Plan; *Teleconference #2:* update on Long Term Goal progress since 2005; *Face-to-Face meeting:* the Land research program's progress in response to recommendations from its 2005 BOSC review and other activities, subcommittee discussions. The meetings are open to the public. *Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Heather Drumm at
(202)564-8239 or *drumm.heather@epa.gov.* To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Heather Drumm, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: March 11, 2008. Jeff Morris, Acting Director, Office of Science Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5286 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054; FRL-8541-8] Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meetings—Spring 2008 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of three meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC)Homeland Security Subcommittee. DATES: The first meeting (teleconference call) will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The second meeting (teleconference call) will be held on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The third meeting (three day face-to-face meeting) will be held on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, May 29, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; and Friday, May 30, 2008, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public on Wednesday, May 28, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and Friday, May 30, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. All times noted are eastern time. The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meetings will be accepted up to 1 business day before each meeting. ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference calls will be by teleconference only—meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the calls from Greg Susanke, whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The face to face meeting will be held at the Marriott Kingsgate Conference Hotel, 151 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45219. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Fax:* Fax comments to:
(202)566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Mail:* Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or email. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Greg Susanke, Mail Drop 8104-R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202)564-9945; via fax at:
(202)565-2911; or via e-mail at: *susanke.greg@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at a meeting may contact Greg Susanke, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. Proposed agenda items for the meetings include, but are not limited to: *Teleconference #1:* The objectives of the review, an overview of ORD's entire research program and an overview of its homeland security research program; *Teleconference #2:* An overview of the Homeland Security Multi-Year Research Plan, and preparation for the face-to-face meeting; *Face-to-Face Meeting:* Overview of Multi-Year Plan Long Term Goals, poster session for highlighting and detailing specific research, subcommittee discussions to address subcommittee charge questions, and subcommittee report out of preliminary findings. The meetings are open to the public. *Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Greg Susanke at
(202)564-9945 or *susanke.greg@epa.gov.* To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Greg Susanke, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Partially Closed Meeting EPA ORD is conducting an independent expert review through the BOSC, of its Homeland Security Research Program. The BOSC's Homeland Security Subcommittee will conduct a prospective and retrospective review of ORD's National Homeland Security Research Center's (NHSRC) Research Program, and evaluate the program's relevance, quality, performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC's evaluation and recommendations will provide guidance to ORD NHSRC. It is EPA's policy to follow the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)for subcommittees of its chartered advisory committees, and to have meetings that are open to the public. However, to allow for the review and discussion of classified national security information, EPA has determined that a portion of the face-to-face meeting on May 28, 2008 (9 a.m. to 12 p.m.) and May 30, 2008 (8 a.m. to 9 a.m.) should be closed to the public pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, and section (c)(1) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). During the closed portion of the meeting, a review of classified national security information by the subcommittee will provide additional context and explanation for the direction and scope of the research program, as well as for the specific research conducted by NHSRC. Dated: March 6, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-5291 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053; FRL-8543-1] Board of Scientific Counselors, National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)Standing Subcommittee Meeting—2007 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC)National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)Standing Subcommittee. DATES: The meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the conference call will be accepted up to 1 business day before the meeting. ADDRESSES: Participation in the meeting will be by teleconference only—meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from Susan Peterson, whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053. • *Fax:* Fax comments to:
(202)566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053. • *Mail:* Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)Standing Subcommittee—2007 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053. • *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053. Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)Standing Subcommittee—2007 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Susan Peterson, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202)564-1077; via fax at:
(202)565-2911; or via e-mail at: *peterson.susan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information Participation in the meeting will be by teleconference only—meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public who wish to obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the conference call may contact Susan Peterson, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above, by 4 working days prior to the conference call. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the subcommittee's input to their draft letter report and followup from their January 18, 2008 teleconference. Proposed agenda items for the conference call include, but are not limited to: A review of the January 18, 2008 teleconference, and finalization of the draft letter report. The conference call is open to the public. *Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Susan Peterson at
(202)564-1077 or *peterson.susan@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Susan Peterson, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: March 11, 2008. Jeff Morris, Acting Director, Office of Science Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5293 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget March 7, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has received Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for the following public information collection(s) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimate(s) and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Gilgenbach, *Sue.Gilgenbach@fcc.gov,*
(202)418-0639. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0484. *OMB Approval Date:* February 19, 2008. *Expiration Date:* February 28, 2011. *Title:* Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications. *Form No.:* Not applicable. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 4,819 responses; 2 hours per response; 9,638 hours total per year. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. 47 CFR Part 4. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* Responses are presumed to be confidential. It is expected that the information filings will be shared only with the Department of Homeland Security, under appropriate confidential disclosure provisions. Other persons seeking disclosure must follow the procedures delineated in 47 CFR 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules. *Needs and Uses:* The information collection is necessary for the following reasons:
(1)It enables the Commission to achieve its statutory objectives of ensuring the reliability and security of the nation's telecommunications networks for the purposes of public safety and the national defense and security, including homeland security. If less frequent reporting were required, outages having a detrimental effect on the public and outages that could provide valuable network reliability information could escape Commission monitoring efforts.
(2)In addition, some of the information collected could constitute “Critical Infrastructure Information,” as defined in 6 U.S.C. 131, which would be shared with the Department of Homeland Security in furtherance of its missions to protect the United States from terrorist activity and to otherwise protect domestic security. Less frequent reporting could jeopardize the ability of the Commission and the Department of Homeland Security to meet their respective legal duties to the American people. This information collection consists of reports of outages of wireline communications, paging and wireless communications, cable circuit switched telephony and satellite communications. If the Commission did not receive the information in these reports for analysis and further investigation, the Commission would have considerable difficulty determining the state of network reliability and security. It would have to depend on delayed, incomplete and second-hand information and analysis as a basis for recommending any future Commission action that might be needed to enhance the reliability and security of the Nation's communications infrastructure. Without this information collection, the Commission would have difficulty determining the implementation and efficacy of its own and industry's present and future recommendations for enhancing reliability and security. Furthermore, the Commission would be less able to spot and act on reliability and security weaknesses as they begin to appear in the rapidly changing networks. Thus, the reporting requirement facilitates Commission monitoring of the reliability and security of communications service being provided and enables it to take swift remedial action, as required. The reporting requirement is also essential to the Commission's mission of ensuring that the public is protected from major disruptions to telephone services. This information collected has been used by the Commission staff to determine weaknesses in network reliability and to work with industry to remedy any such weaknesses. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5305 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-545] Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commission announces the next meeting date and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (“Committee”). The purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of all consumers in proceedings before the Commission. DATES: The next meeting of the Committee will take place on Friday, April 4, 2008, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, NW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Marshall, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,
(202)418-2809 (voice),
(202)418-0179 (TTY), or e-mail *scott.marshal@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2008, the Commission released document DA 08-545, which announced the agenda, date and time of the next Consumer Advisory Committee meeting. At its April 4, 2007 meeting, the Committee will continue its consideration of digital television transition issues. The Committee may also consider other consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A limited amount of time on the agenda will be available for oral comments from the public. The Committee is organized under and operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988). The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public may address the Committee or may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, at the address indicated on the first page of this document. The meeting site is accessible to people with disabilities. Meetings are sign language interpreted with real-time transcription and assistive listening devices available. Meeting agendas are provided in accessible formats. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Federal Communications Commission. Catherine W. Seidel, Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-5303 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting; FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting; Wednesday, March 19, 2008 March 13, 2008. The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, which is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Item No. Bureau Subject 1 Wireline Competition *Title:* Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets. *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Report and Order concerning exclusive contracts for the provision of telecommunications services in multiple tenant environments (MTEs). 2 Wireline Competition *Title:* Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (GN Docket No. 07-45). *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Fifth Report that examines the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 3 Wireline Competition *Title:* Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)Subscribership (WC Docket No. 07-38). *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing collection of broadband subscription and availability data. 4 Wireless Tele-Communications, International, And Office Of Engineering And Technology *Title:* Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational, and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands (WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586); Part 1 of the Commission's Rules—Further Competitive Bidding Procedures (WT Docket No. 03-67); Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions (MM Docket No. 97-217); Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico (WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718); Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets (WT Docket No. 00-230); Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands (IB Docket No. 02-364); and Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems (ET Docket No. 00-258). *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Third Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing spectrum sharing among incumbent and future services in the 2495-2500 MHz band. The Commission will also consider a Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning changes to the service rules applicable to the Broadband Radio Service and the Educational Broadband Service. 5 Wireless Tele-Communications *Title:* Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services (WT Docket No. 03-264). *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Third Report and Order concerning changes to the radiated power rules applicable to certain wireless services. 6 Media *Title:* Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules; Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999; Local Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues; WHDT-DT, Channel 59, Stuart, Florida., Application for Review (CS Docket No. 00-96) *Summary:* The Commission will consider issues regarding carriage of digital broadcast television signals by satellite carriers. Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible; please allow at least 5 days advance notice. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to: *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations,
(202)418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events Web page at *http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio* . For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call
(703)993-3100 or go to *http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu* . Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(202)488-5300; Fax
(202)488-5563; TTY
(202)488-5562. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached by e-mail at *FCC@BCPIWEB.com* . Dated: March 13, 2008. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1041 Filed 3-13-08; 1:13 pm]
Connectionstraces to 54
Traces to 54 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
124 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 33 CFR 181
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)
  • 50 CFR 424.11(f)
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 803 F.2d 1016
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 40 CFR 1501.7
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 103-454
  • 108 Stat. 4791
  • Pub. L. 92-203
  • 15 CFR 930
  • 5 USC 533(b)(A)
  • 41 CFR 102
  • 32 CFR 324
  • 10 USC 5041
  • 32 CFR 701
  • Pub. L. 95-91
  • 10 CFR 420
  • 10 CFR 440
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 40 CFR 59
  • 40 CFR 61
  • 40 CFR 60
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 40 CFR 65
  • 40 CFR 372
  • 40 CFR 280
  • 40 CFR 265.1063
  • 40 CFR 265.1064
  • 40 CFR 265.11
  • 40 CFR 265.1101
  • 40 CFR 265.19
+ 84 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
C.F.R.§ 187.3
U.S.C.§ 1533
U.S.C.§ 1532
U.S.C.§ 1531
U.S.C.§ 3506
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cites 178 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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