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 · 2008-03-20 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Direct final rule; withdrawal

61,511 words·~280 min read·/register/2008/03/20/08-1060

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0024; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-4] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Black River Falls, WI AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** February 11, 2008, (73 FR 7668), FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0024, establishing Class E airspace at Black River Falls Area Airport, is being withdrawn.
The FAA has found that Class E airspace already exists for the area, and therefore, substantial corrections would need to be made. In the interest of clarity, this rule is being withdrawn, and a new rulemaking amending the existing airspace will be forthcoming. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Yadouga, Central Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone number
(817)222-5597. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On Monday, February 11, 2008, a direct final rule was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 7668), Docket No. FAA-2008-0024, establishing Class E airspace at 08-AGL-04 2 Black River Falls Area Airport, Black River Falls, WI. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that Class E airspace already exists for this area. The FAA feels a correction to this rulemaking would be confusing. Therefore, the FAA is withdrawing this direct final rule and will replace it with an amendment to the existing Class E airspace for Black River Falls, WI. Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration withdraws the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7668). Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 5, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5165 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0126; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-2] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Indianapolis, IN AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** February 4, 2008, (73 FR 6424), Docket No. FAA-2008-026, establishing Class E airspace at Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Field Airport, Indianapolis, IN, is being withdrawn. The FAA has found that Class E airspace already exists for the Indianapolis, IN, area, and therefore, substantial corrections would need to be made. In the interest of clarity, this rule is being withdrawn, and a new rulemaking amending the existing airspace will be forthcoming. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Yadouga, Central Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone
(817)222-5597; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-02. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On Monday, February 4, 2008, a direct final rule was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6424), Docket No. FAA-2008-0024, establishing Class E airspace at Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Field Airport, Indianapolis, IN. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that Class E airspace already exists for the Indianapolis area. The FAA feels a correction to this rulemaking would be confusing. Therefore, the FAA is withdrawing the direct final rule and will replace it with an amendment to the existing Class E airspace for Indianapolis, IN. Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 7, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5367 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0003; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-1] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lexington, OK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7667) FAA Docket No. 2008-0003, is being withdrawn. This copy of the rule was inadvertently sent to the **Federal Register** . The direct final rule establishing Class E airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington, OK, published February 15, 2008, (73 FR 8795) is the correct rule. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Yadouga, Central Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone number
(817)222-5597. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On Monday, February 11, 2008, a direct final rule establishing Class E Airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington, OK, was inadvertently published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 7667) FAA Docket No. 2008-0003. On Friday, February 15, 2008, another direct final rule for the same airspace, with minor changes to the geographic location, also was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 8795). The FAA is withdrawing the first direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7667). Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration withdraws the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7667). Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 5, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5164 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Oxytetracycline Solution AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd. The supplemental NADA provides for changing scientific nomenclature for a bovine pathogen on labeling for 300 milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL) strength oxytetracycline injectable solution. DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan C. Gotthardt, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8342, e-mail: *joan.gotthardt@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works, Newry, BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland, filed a supplement to NADA 141-143 for TETRADURE 300 (oxytetracycline) Injection used for the treatment of various bacterial diseases of cattle and swine. The supplemental NADA provides for changing a bovine pathogen genus from *Haemophilus* to *Histophilus* on product labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of February 8, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1660b to reflect the approval. Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. In § 522.1660, revise the section heading to read as follows: § 522.1660 Oxytetracycline injectable dosage forms. 3. In § 522.1660a, revise the section heading to read as follows: § 522.1660a Oxytetracycline solution, 200 milligrams/milliliter. § 522.1660b [Amended] 4. In § 522.1660b, in the section heading, remove “injection, 300 milligram/milliliter” and in its place add “solution, 300 milligrams/milliliter”; in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A), remove “ *Haemophilus* spp.” and in its place add “ *Histophilus* spp.”; and in the fourth sentence in paragraph (e)(1)(ii), remove “in cattle”. Dated: March 6, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-5598 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 41 and 42 [Public Notice: 6135] Visas: Documentation of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants —Visa Classification Symbols AGENCY: State Department. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department is amending its regulations to add new classification symbols to the immigrant and nonimmigrant classification tables. The amendment is necessary to implement legislation that has created additional immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications as described herein. Additionally, the Department is removing immigrant classifications that have become obsolete as a result of either their deletion from the Immigration and Nationality Act “INA” or the expiration of legislative provisions that had temporarily authorized them. This rule also corrects typographical errors noted in the tables. DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara J. Kennedy, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-0106, phone
(202)663-1206. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Which immigrant classifications are being added? The new immigrant classification symbols listed are for children residing habitually in Hague Adoption Convention countries who have been or will be adopted by U.S. citizens who are habitually residents in the United States (IH3, IH4), and for two additional classes of special immigrants: certain nationals of Afghanistan and Iraq employed by the U.S. Government in Afghanistan or Iraq as translators or interpreters (SI1, SI2, SI3), and certain Iraqis employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government in Iraq (SQ1, SQ2, SQ3). Which nonimmigrant classifications are being added? Added to the nonimmigrant classification tables are symbols for certain nationals of Australia in a specialty occupation (E3), spouses and children accompanying or following to join E3 principal aliens (E3D), E3 principal aliens who are applying for a new visa when there has been uninterrupted continuity of employment (E3R); treaty aliens from Singapore and Chile in a specialty occupation (H1B1); unmarried siblings under age 18 of an alien under 21 years of age who has qualified for T1 classification as a victim of a “severe form of trafficking in persons” (T5); and unmarried siblings under age 18 of an alien under 21 years of age who has qualified for U1 classification as a victim of certain types of criminal activity helpful in the investigation or prosecution of such activity (U5). Which immigrant classifications are being removed? The Department of State is removing the immigrant classification symbol for one class of special immigrant: certain aliens employed at the United States Mission in Hong Kong
(SEH)or members of their immediate families. The authority for special immigrant status for that class applied only to aliens who had filed applications for such status by January 1, 2002. Also being removed are two of the five symbols for special immigrants who were recruited outside the United States into the U.S. armed forces and have served or are enlisted in the U.S. armed forces for 12 years and their spouses and children. The deleted symbols pertain to those service members
(SM4)and spouses and children
(SM5)who became eligible as of the date of enactment (October 1, 1991). Also being deleted is the reference to the date of enactment from the class description for the SM1 classification symbol because the INA provision that was the reason for the additional symbols and the significance of that date was deleted from the INA. As amended, the regulation will provide three SM classification symbols that encompass such service members, spouses, and children without reference to the date they became eligible. What is the background for the new immigrant visa classifications (IH3 and IH4) for a child from a Hague Convention country? Section 302 of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, Public Law 106-279, amended the INA by adding a new section 101(b)(1)(G), effective upon the entry into force for the United States of the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption done at the Hague on May 29, 1993, to accord a classification of immediate relative under section 201(b) to a child who has been adopted in a foreign state, or a child who is emigrating from a foreign state to be adopted in the United States, when the foreign state is a party to the Convention. On December 12, 2007, the United States deposited its instrument of ratification for the Convention. In accordance with the terms of the Convention, it will enter into force with respect to the United States on April 1, 2008. What is the background for the new immigrant visa classifications (SI1, SI2, SI3) for aliens employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq or Afghanistan as translators or interpreters, spouse of SI1, and child of SI1? Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Public Law 109-163, as amended by section 3812 of Public Law 110-28, created the new special immigrant classification for certain self-petitioning translators or interpreters of Iraqi or Afghani nationality who have worked directly with United States Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission authority for a period of at least 12 months. The alien must have obtained a favorable written recommendation from the Chief of Mission or a general or flag officer in the chain of command of the United States Armed Forces unit that was supported by the alien and, before filing the petition, cleared a background check and screening, as determined by the Chief of Mission or such a general or flag officer. This class is subject to numerical limitations; however, aliens in this class who are granted special immigrant status shall not be counted against any numerical limitation under INA sections 201(d), 202(a), or 203(b)(4). If accompanying or following to join a principal alien, the spouse or child is entitled to derivative special immigrant status. If the principal alien dies after special immigrant status has been granted, the surviving spouse or child is entitled to such status. What is the background for the new immigrant visa classifications (SQ1, SQ2, SQ3) for certain Iraqis employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, spouse of SQ1, and child of SQ1? Section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 110-181, created the new special immigrant classification under section 101(a)(27) of the INA for certain qualified self-petitioning Iraqi citizens or nationals. The alien must have been employed by or on behalf of the United States Government in Iraq on or after March 20, 2003, for not less than one year; have provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government, which is documented in a positive recommendation or evaluation from the employee's senior supervisor or, if the employee's senior supervisor has left the employer or has left Iraq, from the person currently occupying that position or a more senior person; and have experienced or be experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of the alien's employment by the United States Government. No petition may be approved for such an alien unless the supervisor's positive recommendation or evaluation is accompanied by approval from the Chief of Mission or the designee of the Chief of Mission, who shall conduct a risk assessment of the alien and an independent review of records maintained by the United States Government or the hiring organization or entity to confirm employment and faithful and valuable service to the United States Government. Further, the alien must be otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa; be otherwise admissible to the United States for permanent residence (excluding the grounds for inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) of the INA) and have cleared a background check and appropriate screening, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This class is subject to numerical limitations; however, aliens in this class who are granted special immigrant status shall not be counted against any numerical limitation under INA sections 201(d), 202(a), or 203(b)(4). If accompanying or following to join a principal alien, the spouse or child is entitled to derivative special immigrant status. If the principal alien dies after special immigrant status has been granted, the surviving spouse or child is entitled to such status. What is the background for the new nonimmigrant classifications (E3, E3D, E3R) for Australian treaty aliens coming to the United States solely to perform services in a specialty occupation, spouse or child of an E3, and returning E3? Section 501 of Division B, Title V, of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, Public Law 109-13, amended INA 101(a)(15)(E) to add the new nonimmigrant visa classification for certain treaty aliens who are nationals of Australia coming to the United States solely to perform services in a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the INA, provided the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security that the intending employer has filed an attestation under section 212(t)(1) of the INA. Annual numerical limitations apply unless the alien is obtaining a new E3 visa after having already been in E3 status in the United States and establishes that there has been uninterrupted continuity of employment for the same United States-based employer who submitted the original labor condition application and offer of employment. Section 101(a)(15)(E) provides that the spouse or child who is accompanying or following to join a principal alien who qualifies for classification under that section is also entitled to such classification. What is the background for the new nonimmigrant classification
(H1B1)for a Chilean or Singaporean national to work in a specialty occupation? Sections 402(a)(1) of Public Law 108-77, the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, as amended, and Public Law 108-78, the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, amended Sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) and 214(g)(8)(A) of the INA, to provide for nonimmigrant classification for an alien who is entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of either of those two free trade agreements, subject to annual numerical limitations established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Both agreements entered into force on January 1, 2004. What is the background for the new nonimmigrant classification
(T5)for an unmarried sibling under age 18 of a T1 under 21 years of age? Section 801(b)(2) of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Public Law 109-162, amended section 101(a)(15)(T) of the INA, which provides for nonimmigrant classification of an alien who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be a victim of a “severe form of trafficking in persons,” provided he or she also meets additional requirements of that section, and for certain family members, if accompanying or following to join the principal alien. As amended, clause
(ii)includes a provision for derivative nonimmigrant classification of an unmarried sibling under 18 years of age on the date the principal alien applies for status, if accompanying or following to join a principal alien under 21 years of age. This rule is adding the T5 classification for such a sibling to the classification table, which already lists the victim (T1), and the spouse
(T2)and child
(T3)of a T1 principal alien, as well as the parent of a T1 principal under the age of 21 (T4), if accompanying or following to join the principal alien. What is the background for the new nonimmigrant classification
(U5)for an unmarried sibling under age 18 of a U1 under 21 years of age? Section 801(b)(2) of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Public Law 109-162, amended section 101(a)(15)(U) of the INA, which provides for nonimmigrant classification of an alien who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have suffered physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of certain criminal activity described in that section, provided he or she also meets additional requirements, and for certain family members, if accompanying or following to join the principal alien. As amended, clause
(ii)includes a provision for derivative nonimmigrant classification of an unmarried sibling under age 18 as of the date the principal alien applies for status, if accompanying or following to join a principal alien under 21 years of age. This rule is adding the U5 classification to the classification table, which already lists the victim (U1), and the spouse
(U2)and child
(U3)of a U1 principal alien, as well as the parent of a U1 principal under the age of 21 (U4), if accompanying or following to join the principal alien. Why is the Department removing symbols for special immigrant status for certain aliens employed at the United States Mission in Hong Kong (SEH), and for certain aliens recruited outside the United States who have served or are enlisted in the U.S. armed forces for 12 years (eligible as of October 1, 1991) (SM4), and the spouse or child (SM5)? Section 152 of Public Law 101-649 established a class of immigrants with special immigrant status for certain aliens employed at the United States Mission in Hong Kong or their immediate families. The immigrant classification table has listed this class with the symbol SEH. Subsection
(c)of section 152 of Public Law 101-649 stated that special immigrant status applied only to aliens who filed applications for such status under section 152 by not later than January 1, 2002. Because the authority for special immigrant status for this classification no longer exists, the Department is removing the SEH classification symbol. Section 2(b) of the Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act of 1991, Public Law 102-110, amended section 203(b)(6) of the INA. As amended, section 203(b)(6) included a subparagraph (C), which distinguished between those aliens who, as of the date of enactment, October 1, 1991, met the requirements in section 101(a)(27)(K) for special immigrant status, based on recruitment into the U.S. armed forces outside the United States and at least 12 years of service, and those who met the requirements subsequent to that date. The difference was that immigrants who met the requirements after October 1, 1991 were subject to annual numerical limitations, while those who already met the requirements as of October 1, 1991 were not. The Department assigned classification symbols SM1, SM2, and SM3, respectively, to those principal aliens who met the requirements of section 101(a)(27)(K) after October 1, 1991, their spouses and their children. The SM4 and SM5 classification symbols were assigned, respectively, to those principal aliens who met those requirements as of October 1, 1991 and their spouses and children. Section 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Public Law 103-416, amended section 203(b)(6) of the INA by deleting subparagraph (C). As a result, there is no longer a numerical limitation under section 203(b) for any aliens who qualify for special immigrant status under section 101(a)(27)(K). The Department is therefore removing the SM4 and SM5 classification symbols from the table, and deleting from the class description for SM1 the reference to becoming eligible after the date of enactment. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. It is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 but has been reviewed internally by the Department to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13273: Small Business Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets. Executive Order 12866 The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider the rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Parts 41 and 42 Aliens, Foreign Officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas, Students. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR parts 41 and 42 to read as follows: PART 41—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801. 2. Revise § 41.12 to read as follows: § 41.12 Classification symbols. A visa issued to a nonimmigrant alien within one of the classes described in this section shall bear an appropriate visa symbol to show the classification of the alien. The symbol shall be inserted in the space provided on the visa. The following visa symbols shall be used: Nonimmigrants Symbol Class Section of law A1 Ambassador, Public Minister, Career Diplomat or Consular Officer, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(A)(i). A2 Other Foreign Government Official or Employee, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(A)(ii). A3 Attendant, Servant, or Personal Employee of A1 or A2, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(A)(iii). B1 Temporary Visitor for Business 101(a)(15)(B). B2 Temporary Visitor for Pleasure 101(a)(15)(B). B1/B2 Temporary Visitor for Business & Pleasure 101(a)(15)(B). C1 Alien in Transit 101(a)(15)(C). C1/D Combined Transit and Crewmember Visa 101(a)(15)(C) and (D). C2 Alien in Transit to United Nations Headquarters District Under Sec. 11.(3), (4), or
(5)of the Headquarters Agreement 101(a)(15)(C). C3 Foreign Government Official, Immediate Family, Attendant, Servant or Personal Employee, in Transit 212(d)(8). D Crewmember (Sea or Air) 101(a)(15)(D). E1 Treaty Trader, Spouse or Child 101(a)(15)(E)(i). E2 Treaty Investor, Spouse or Child 101(a)(15)(E)(ii). E3 Australian Treaty Alien Coming to the United States Solely to Perform Services in a Specialty Occupation 101(a)(15)(E)(iii). E3D Spouse or Child of E3 101(a)(15)(E)(iii). E3R Returning E3 101(a)(15)(E)(iii). F1 Student in an academic or language training program 101(a)(15)(F)(i). F2 Spouse or Child of F1 101(a)(15)(F)(ii). F3 Canadian or Mexican national commuter student in an academic or language training program 101(a)(15)(F)(iii). G1 Principal Resident Representative of Recognized Foreign Government to International Organization, Staff, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(G)(i). G2 Other Representative of Recognized Foreign Member Government to International Organization, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(G)(ii). G3 Representative of Nonrecognized or Nonmember Foreign Government to International Organization, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(G)(iii). G4 International Organization Officer or Employee, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(G)(iv). G5 Attendant, Servant, or Personal Employee of G1 through G4, or Immediate Family 101(a)(15)(G)(v). H1B Alien in a Specialty Occupation (Profession) 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). H1B1 Chilean or Singaporean National to Work in a Specialty Occupation 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1). H1C Nurse in Health Professional Shortage Area 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c). H2A Temporary Worker Performing Agricultural Services Unavailable in the United States 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). H2B Temporary Worker Performing Other Services Unavailable in the United States 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). H3 Trainee 101(a)(15)(H)(iii). H4 Spouse or Child of Alien Classified H1B/B1/C, H2A/B/R, or H-3 101(a)(15)(H)(iv). I Representative of Foreign Information Media, Spouse and Child 101(a)(15)(I). J1 Exchange Visitor 101(a)(15)(J). J2 Spouse or Child of J1 101(a)(15)(J). K1 Fiance(e) of United States Citizen 101(a)(15)(K)(i). K2 Child of Fiance(e) of U.S. Citizen 101(a)(15)(K)(iii). K3 Spouse of U.S. Citizen Awaiting Availability of Immigrant Visa 101(a)(15)(K)(ii). K4 Child of K3 101(a)(15)(K)(iii). L1 Intracompany Transferee (Executive, Managerial, and Specialized Knowledge Personnel Continuing Employment with International Firm or Corporation) 101(a)(15)(L). L2 Spouse or Child of Intracompany Transferee 101(a)(15)(L). M1 Vocational Student or Other Nonacademic Student 101(a)(15)(M)(i). M2 Spouse or Child of M1 101(a)(15)(M)(ii). M3 Canadian or Mexican National Commuter Student (Vocational Student or Other Nonacademic Student) 101(a)(15)(M)(iii). N8 Parent of an Alien Classified SK3 or SN3 101(a)(15)(N)(i). N9 Child of N8 or of SK1, SK2, SK4, SN1, SN2 or SN4 101(a)(15)(N)(ii). NATO 1 Principal Permanent Representative of Member State to NATO (including any of its Subsidiary Bodies) Resident in the U.S. and Resident Members of Official Staff; Secretary General, Assistant Secretaries General, and Executive Secretary of NATO; Other Permanent NATO Officials of Similar Rank, or Immediate Family Art. 12, 5 UST 1094; Art. 20, 5 UST 1098. NATO 2 Other Representative of Member State to NATO (including any of its Subsidiary Bodies) including Representatives, Advisers, and Technical Experts of Delegations, or Immediate Family; Dependents of Member of a Force Entering in Accordance with the Provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement or in Accordance with the Provisions of the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters”; Members of Such a Force if Issued Visas Art. 13, 5 UST 1094; Art. 1, 4 UST 1794; Art. 3, 4 UST 1796. NATO 3 Official Clerical Staff Accompanying Representative of Member State to NATO (including any of its Subsidiary Bodies), or Immediate Family Art. 14, 5 UST 1096. NATO 4 Official of NATO (Other Than Those Classifiable as NATO1), or Immediate Family Art. 18, 5 UST 1098. NATO 5 Experts, Other Than NATO Officials Classifiable Under NATO4, Employed in Missions on Behalf of NATO, and their Dependents Art. 21, 5 UST 1100. NATO 6 Member of a Civilian Component Accompanying a Force Entering in Accordance with the Provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement; Member of a Civilian Component Attached to or Employed by an Allied Headquarters Under the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters” Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty; and their Dependents Art. 1, 4 UST 1794; Art. 3, 5 UST 877. NATO 7 Attendant, Servant, or Personal Employee of NATO1, NATO2, NATO3, NATO4, NATO5, and NATO6 Classes, or Immediate Family Arts. 12-20, 5 UST 1094-1098. O1 Alien with Extraordinary Ability in Sciences, Arts, Education, Business or Athletics 101(a)(15)(O)(i). O2 Alien Accompanying and Assisting in the Artistic or Athletic Performance by O1 101(a)(15)(O)(ii). O3 Spouse or Child of O1 or O2 101(a)(15)(O)(iii). P1 Internationally Recognized Athlete or Member of Internationally Recognized Entertainment Group 101(a)(15)(P)(i). P2 Artist or Entertainer in a Reciprocal Exchange Program 101(a)(15)(P)(ii). P3 Artist or Entertainer in a Culturally Unique Program 101(a)(15)(P)(iii). P4 Spouse or Child of P1, P2, or P3 101(a)(15)(P)(iv). Q1 Participant in an International Cultural Exchange Program 101(a)(15)(Q)(i). Q2 Irish Peace Process Program Participant 101(a)(15)(Q)(ii)(I). Q3 Spouse or Child of Q2 101(a)(15)(Q)(ii)(II). R1 Alien in a Religious Occupation 101(a)(15)(R). R2 Spouse or Child of R1 101(a)(15)(R). S5 Certain Aliens Supplying Critical Information Relating to a Criminal Organization or Enterprise 101(a)(15)(S)(i). S6 Certain Aliens Supplying Critical Information Relating to Terrorism 101(a)(15)(S)(ii). S7 Qualified Family Member of S5 or S6 101(a)(15)(S). T1 Victim of a Severe Form of Trafficking in Persons 101(a)(15)(T)(i). T2 Spouse of T1 101(a)(15)(T)(ii). T3 Child of T1 101(a)(15)(T)(ii). T4 Parent of T1 Under 21 Years of Age 101(a)(15)(T)(ii). T5 Unmarried Sibling Under Age 18 of T1 Under 21 Years of Age 101(a)(15)(T)(ii). TN NAFTA Professional 214(e)(2). TD Spouse or Child of NAFTA Professional 214(e)(2). U1 Victim of Criminal Activity 101(a)(15)(U)(i). U2 Spouse of U1 101(a)(15)(U)(ii). U3 Child of U1 101(a)(15)(U)(ii). U4 Parent of U1 Under 21 Years of Age 101(a)(15)(U)(ii). U5 Unmarried Sibling Under Age 18 of U1 Under 21 Years of Age 101(a)(15)(U)(ii). V1 Spouse of a Lawful Permanent Resident Alien Awaiting Availability of Immigrant Visa 101(a)(15)(V)(i) or 101(a)(15)(V)(ii). V2 Child of a Lawful Permanent Resident Alien Awaiting Availability of Immigrant Visa 101(a)(15)(V)(i) or 101(a)(15)(V)(ii). V3 Child of a V1 or V2 203(d) & 101(a)(15)(V)(i) or 101(a)(15)(V)(ii). PART 42—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 42 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 107-56, sec. 421. 2. Revise § 42.11 to read as follows: § 42.11 Classification symbols. A visa issued to an immigrant alien within one of the classes described below shall bear an appropriate visa symbol to show the classification of the alien. Immigrants Symbol Class Section of law Immediate Relatives IR1 Spouse of U.S. Citizen 201(b). IR2 Child of U.S. Citizen 201(b). IR3 Orphan Adopted Abroad by U.S. Citizen 201(b) & 101(b)(1)(F). IH3 Child from Hague Convention Country Adopted Abroad by U.S. Citizen 201(b) & 101(b)(1)(G). IR4 Orphan to be Adopted in U.S. by U.S. Citizen 201(b) & 101(b)(1)(F). IH4 Child from Hague Convention Country to be Adopted in U.S. by U.S. Citizen 201(b) & 101(b)(1)(G). IR5 Parent of U.S. Citizen at Least 21 Years of Age 201(b). CR1 Spouse of U.S. Citizen (Conditional Status) 201(b) & 216. CR2 Child of U.S. Citizen (Conditional Status) 201(b) & 216. IW1 Certain Spouses of Deceased U.S. Citizens 201(b). IW2 Child of IW1 201(b). IB1 Self-petition Spouse of U.S. Citizen 204(a)(1)(A)(iii). IB2 Self-petition Child of U.S. Citizen 204(a)(1)(A)(iv). IB3 Child of IB1 204(a)(1)(A)(iii). VI5 Parent of U.S. Citizen Who Acquired Permanent Resident Status Under the Virgin Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act 201(b) & sec. 2 of the Virgin Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act, (Pub. L. 97-271). Vietnam Amerasian Immigrants AM1 Vietnam Amerasian Principal 584(b)(1)(A) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as contained in section 101(e) of Pub. L. 100-102) as amended. AM2 Spouse or Child of AM1 584(b)(1)(A) and 584(b)(1)(B) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as contained in section 101(e) of Pub. L. 100-102) as amended. AM3 Natural Mother of AM1 (and Spouse or Child of Such Mother) or Person Who has Acted in Effect as the Mother, Father, or Next-of-Kin of AM1 (and Spouse or Child of Such Person) 584(b)(1)(A) and 584(b)(1)(C) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as contained in section 101(e) of Pub. L. 100-102) as amended. Special Immigrants SB1 Returning Resident 101(a)(27)(A). SC1 Person Who Lost U.S. Citizenship by Marriage 101(a)(27)(B) & 324(a). SC2 Person Who Lost U.S. Citizenship by Serving in Foreign Armed Forces 101(a)(27)(B) & 327. SI1 Certain Aliens Employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq or Afghanistan as Translators or Interpreters Section 1059 of Pub. L. 109-163 as amended by Pub. L. 110-36. SI2 Spouse of SI1 Section 1059 of Pub. L. 109-163 as amended by Pub. L. 110-36. SI3 Child of SI1 Section 1059 of Pub. L. 109-163 as amended by Pub. L. 110-36. SM1 Alien Recruited Outside the United States Who Has Served or is Enlisted to Serve in the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 Years 101(a)(27)(K). SM2 Spouse of SM1 101(a)(27)(K). SM3 Child of SM1 101(a)(27)(K). SQ1 Certain Iraqis Employed by or on Behalf of the U.S. Government Section 1244 of Public Law 110-181. SQ2 Spouse of SQ1 Section 1244 of Public Law 110-181. SQ3 Child of SQ1 Section 1244 of Public Law 110-181. Family-Sponsored Preferences Family 1st Preference F11 Unmarried Son or Daughter of U.S. Citizen 203(a)(1). F12 Child of F11 203(d) & 203(a)(1). B11 Self-petition Unmarried Son or Daughter of U.S. Citizen 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) & 203(a)(1). B12 Child of B11 203(d), 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) & 203(a)(1). Family 2nd Preference (Subject to Country Limitations) F21 Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident 203(a)(2)(A). F22 Child of Lawful Permanent Resident 203(a)(2)(A). F23 Child of F21 or F22 203(d) & 203(a)(2)(A). F24 Unmarried Son or Daughter of Lawful Permanent Resident 203(a)(2)(B). F25 Child of F24 203(d) & 203(a)(2)(B). C21 Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident (Conditional) 203(a)(2)(A) & 216. C22 Child of Alien Resident (Conditional) 203(a)(2)(A) & 216. C23 Child of C21 or C22 (Conditional) 203(d) & 203(a)(2)(A) & 216. C24 Unmarried Son or Daughter of Lawful Permanent Resident (Conditional) 203(a)(2)(B) & 216. C25 Child of F24 (Conditional) 203(d) & 203(a)(2)(B) & 216. B21 Self-petition Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident 204(a)(1)(B)(ii). B22 Self-petition Child of Lawful Permanent Resident 204(a)(1)(B)(iii). B23 Child of B21 or B22 203(d) & 204(a)(1)(B)(ii). B24 Self-petition Unmarried Son or Daughter of Lawful Permanent Resident 204(a)(1)(B)(iii). B25 Child of B24 203(d) & 204(a)(1)(B)(iii). Family 2nd Preference (Exempt from Country Limitations) FX1 Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A). FX2 Child of Lawful Permanent Resident 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A). FX3 Child of FX1 or FX2 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A) & 203(d). CX1 Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident (Conditional) 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A) & 216. CX2 Child of Lawful Permanent Resident (Conditional) 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A) & 216. CX3 Child of CX1 or CX2 (Conditional) 202(a)(4)(A) & 203(a)(2)(A) & 203(d) & 216. BX1 Self-petition Spouse of Lawful Permanent Resident 204(a)(1)(B)(ii). BX2 Self-petition Child of Lawful Permanent Resident 204(a)(1)(B)(iii). BX3 Child of BX1 or BX2 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) & 203(d). Family 3rd Preference F31 Married Son or Daughter of U.S. Citizen 203(a)(3). F32 Spouse of F31 203(d) & 203(a)(3). F33 Child of F31 203(d) & 203(a)(3). C31 Married Son or Daughter of U.S. Citizen (Conditional) 203(a)(3) & 216. C32 Spouse of C31 (Conditional) 203(d) & 203(a)(3) & 216. C33 Child of C31 (Conditional) 203(d) & 203(a)(3) & 216. B31 Self-petition Married Son or Daughter of U.S. Citizen 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) & 203(a)(3). B32 Spouse of B31 203(d), 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) & 203(a)(3). B33 Child of B31 203(d), 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) & 203(a)(3). Family 4th Preference F41 Brother or Sister of U.S. Citizen at Least 21 Years of Age 203(a)(4). F42 Spouse of F41 203(d) & 203(a)(4). F43 Child of F41 203(d) & 203(a)(4). Employment-Based Preferences Employment 1st Preference (Priority Workers) E11 Alien with Extraordinary Ability 203(b)(1)(A). E12 Outstanding Professor or Researcher 203(b)(1)(B). E13 Multinational Executive or Manager 203(b)(1)(C). E14 Spouse of E11, E12, or E13 203(d) & 203(b)(1)(A) & 203(b)(1)(B) & 203(b)(1)(C). E15 Child of E11, E12, or E13 203(d) & 203(b)(1)(A) & 203(b)(1)(B) & 203(b)(1)(C). Employment 2nd Preference (Professionals Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability) E21 Professional Holding Advanced Degree or Alien of Exceptional Ability 203(b)(2). E22 Spouse of E21 203(d) & 203(b)(2). E23 Child of E21 203(d) & 203(b)(2). Employment 3rd Preference (Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers) E31 Skilled Worker 203(b)(3)(A)(i). E32 Professional Holding Baccalaureate Degree 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). E34 Spouse of E31 or E32 203(d) & 203(b)(3)(A)(i) & 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). E35 Child of E31 or E32 203(d) & 203(b)(3)(A)(i) & 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). EW3 Other Worker (Subgroup Numerical Limit) 203(b)(3)(A)(iii). EW4 Spouse of EW3 203(d) & 203(b)(3)(A)(iii). EW5 Child of EW3 203(d) & 203(b)(3)(A)(iii). Employment 4th Preference (Certain Special Immigrants) BC1 Broadcaster in the U.S. employed by the International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors or a grantee of such organization 101(a)(27)(M) & 203(b)(4). BC2 Accompanying spouse of BC1 101(a)(27)(M) & 203(b)(4). BC3 Accompanying child of BC1 101(a)(27)(M) & 203(b)(4). SD1 Minister of Religion 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(I) & 203(b)(4). SD2 Spouse of SD1 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(I) & 203(b)(4). SD3 Child of SD1 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(I) & 203(b)(4). SE1 Certain Employees or Former Employees of the U.S. Government Abroad 101(a)(27)(D) & 203(b)(4). SE2 Spouse of SE1 101(a)(27)(D) & 203(b)(4). SE3 Child of SE1 101(a)(27)(D) & 203(b)(4). SF1 Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government 101(a)(27)(E) & 203(b)(4). SF2 Spouse or Child of SF1 101(a)(27)(E) & 203(b)(4). SG1 Certain Former Employees of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal Zone 101(a)(27)(F) & 203(b)(4). SG2 Spouse or Child of SG1 101(a)(27)(F) & 203(b)(4). SH1 Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government on April 1, 1979 101(a)(27)(G) & 203(b)(4). SH2 Spouse or Child of SH1 101(a)(27)(G) & 203(b)(4). SJ1 Certain Foreign Medical Graduates (Adjustments Only) 101(a)(27)(H). SJ2 Accompanying Spouse or Child of SJ1 101(a)(27)(H) & 203(b)(4). SK1 Certain Retired International Organization employees 101(a)(27)(I)(iii) & 203(b)(4). SK2 Spouse of SK1 101(a)(27)(I)(iv) & 203(b)(4). SK3 Certain Unmarried Sons or Daughters of an International Organization Employee 101(a)(27)(I)(i) & 203(b)(4). SK4 Certain Surviving Spouses of a deceased International Organization Employee 101(a)(27)(I)(ii) & 203(b)(4). SL1 Juvenile Court Dependent (Adjustment Only) 101(a)(27)(J) & 203(b)(4). SN1 Certain retired NATO6 civilians 101(a)(27)(L) & 203(b)(4). SN2 Spouse of SN1 101(a)(27)(L) & 203(b)(4). SN3 Certain unmarried sons or daughters of NATO6 civilian employees 101(a)(27)(L) & 203(b)(4). SN4 Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO6 civilian employees 101(a)(27)(L) & 203(b)(4). SP Alien Beneficiary of a petition or labor certification application filed prior to September 11, 2001, if the petition or application was rendered void due to a terrorist act of September 11, 2001. Spouse, child of such alien, or the grandparent of a child orphaned by a terrorist act of September 11, 2001 Section 421 of Public Law 107-56. SR1 Certain Religious Workers 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(II) &
(III)as amended, & 203(b)(4). SR2 Spouse of SR1 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(II) &
(III)as amended, & 203(b)(4). SR3 Child of SR1 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(II) &
(III)as amended, & 203(b)(4). Employment 5th Preference (Employment Creation Conditional Status) C51 Employment Creation OUTSIDE Targeted Areas 203(b)(5)(A). C52 Spouse of C51 203(d) & 203(b)(5)(A). C53 Child of C51 203(d) & 203(b)(5)(A). T51 Employment Creation IN Targeted Rural/High Unemployment Area 203(b)(5)(B). T52 Spouse of T51 203(d) & 203(b)(5)(B). T53 Child of T51 203(d) & 203(b)(5)(B). R51 Investor Pilot Program, Not in Targeted Area 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. R52 Spouse of R51 203(d) & 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. R53 Child of R51 203(d) & 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. I51 Investor Pilot Program, in Targeted Area 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. I52 Spouse of I51 203(d) & 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. I53 Child of I51 203(d) & 203(b)(5) & Sec. 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-395), as amended. Other Numerically Limited Categories Diversity Immigrants DV1 Diversity Immigrant 203(c). DV2 Spouse of DV1 203(d) & 203(c). DV3 Child of DV1 203(d) & 203(c). Dated: March 3, 2008. Stephen A. Edson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-5413 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9387] RIN 1545-AY75 Application of Normalization Accounting Rules to Balances of Excess Deferred Income Taxes and Accumulated Deferred Investment Tax Credits of Public Utilities Whose Assets Cease To Be Public Utility Property AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that provide guidance on the normalization requirements applicable to public utilities that benefit (or have benefited) from accelerated depreciation methods or from the investment tax credit permitted under pre-1991 law. These regulations permit a utility whose assets cease, whether by disposition, deregulation, or otherwise, to be public utility property with respect to the utility (deregulated public utility property) to return to its ratepayers the normalization reserve for excess deferred income taxes (EDFIT) with respect to those assets and, in certain circumstances, also permit the return of part or all of the reserve for accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC) with respect to those assets. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective March 20, 2008. *Applicability Date:* For dates of applicability, see § 1.46-6(k)(4) and § 1.168(i)-3(d) of these regulations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Kirwan, at
(202)622-3040 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions This document amends the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to the normalization requirements of sections 168(f)(2) and 168(i)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), section 203(e) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2146), and former section 46(f) of the Code. Proposed regulations relating to the normalization requirements applicable to electric utilities that benefit (or have benefited) from accelerated depreciation methods or from the investment tax credit permitted under pre-1991 law [REG-104385-01] were published in the **Federal Register** on March 4, 2003 (the 2003 proposed regulations) and again on December 21, 2005 (the 2005 proposed regulations). The preambles of both the 2003 proposed regulations and the 2005 proposed regulations describe the normalization method of accounting and the reserves under the normalization method for excess deferred federal income tax (EDFIT) and accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC). The 2003 proposed regulations provided that electric utilities whose generation assets become deregulated public utility property could continue to flow through EDFIT reserves associated with those assets without violating the normalization requirements. The rate of flowthrough was limited to the rate that would have been permitted under a normalization method of accounting if the assets had remained public utility property. The 2003 proposed regulations provided similar rules under which electric utilities could continue to flow through ADITC reserves associated with generation assets that become deregulated public utility property without violating the normalization requirements. The 2003 proposed regulations addressed the treatment of these assets under former section 46(f)(2) (relating to the use of the investment credit to reduce the taxpayer's cost of service) but did not address their treatment under former section 46(f)(1) (relating to the use of the investment credit to reduce the taxpayer's rate base). The 2003 proposed regulations would have applied to public utility generation property deregulated after March 4, 2003. Utilities would have been permitted an election to apply the proposed rules to generation property that was deregulated on or before that date. In response to the public comments and after further analysis, the 2003 proposed regulations were withdrawn and were replaced by the 2005 proposed regulations. The 2005 proposed regulations generally retain the rule of the 2003 proposed regulations regarding the return of EDFIT reserves and extend the application of the rule to all public utility property. The 2005 proposed regulations permit flowthrough of the ADITC reserve with respect to deregulated public utility property to continue after its deregulation only to the extent the reduction in cost of service does not exceed, as a percentage of the ADITC with respect to the property at the time of deregulation, the percentage of the total stranded cost that the taxpayer is permitted to recover with respect to the property. In addition, the 2005 proposed regulations provide that the credit may not be flowed through more rapidly than the rate at which the taxpayer is permitted to recover the stranded cost with respect to the property. The 2005 proposed regulations provide similar rules for property to which former section 46(f)(1) (relating to rate base restoration) applies and extend the application of the ADITC flowthrough rules to all public utility property. The 2005 proposed regulations generally apply to any public utility property that becomes deregulated public utility property after December 21, 2005. They do not include an election to apply the regulations retroactively. For public utility property that became deregulated public utility property on or before December 21, 2005, the preamble of the 2005 proposed regulations states that the IRS will follow the holdings set forth in the private letter rulings prohibiting flowthrough of the EDFIT and ADITC reserves associated with an asset after the asset's disposition. The 2005 proposed regulations provide, however, that flowthrough will be permitted if it is consistent with the 2003 proposed regulations and occurs during the period beginning on March 5, 2003, and ending on the earlier of
(1)the last date on which the utility's rates are determined under the rate order in effect on December 21, 2005, or
(2)December 21, 2007. Written comments were received in response to the 2005 proposed regulations, and a public hearing was held on April 5, 2006. Three commentators spoke at the public hearing. After consideration of all the comments, the 2005 proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision. In general, the final regulations follow the approach of the 2005 proposed regulations. A number of commentators suggested that the proposed rules should apply on an elective basis to public utility property that was deregulated prior to March 5, 2003, if regulatory proceedings for the deregulated public utility property are pending. The preamble to the 2005 proposed regulations explains that the Secretary's authority under section 7805(b)(7) to provide for retroactive elections should not be exercised in a manner that impairs existing agreements between utilities and their regulators. Many commentators agreed with the objective of not disturbing previously settled and finalized agreements and believed that a retroactive election would likely result in taxpayers being compelled to reopen such agreements. The commentators suggested, however, that applying the regulations to regulatory proceedings that have yet to be finally decided would not impair any existing agreement, and that the final regulations should permit continued flowthrough of the EDFIT and ADITC reserves if no final order or settlement agreement prescribing the treatment of those reserves after deregulation was in effect on December 21, 2005. Other commentators suggested that the section 7805 limitations on retroactivity do not apply to these regulations because the normalization provisions were enacted before the effective date of those limitations. The IRS and Treasury Department agree that there is no statutory impediment that would prohibit the application of the regulations to previously deregulated property. Nevertheless, the IRS and Treasury Department have concluded that there is no compelling argument in this instance for frustrating the expectations of taxpayers who embarked upon deregulation of their public utility property before the publication of the new rules. Accordingly, the final regulations do not depart from the general practice of applying amendments to the regulations without retroactive effect and retain the prospective effective date of the 2005 proposed regulations without a retroactive election. The final regulations retain the proposed transition rule under which flowthrough is permitted if it is consistent with the 2003 proposed regulations and occurs during the period beginning on March 5, 2003, and ending on the earlier of
(1)the last date on which the utility's rates are determined under the rate order in effect on December 21, 2005, or
(2)December 21, 2007. One commentator suggested that the regulations should provide guidance concerning when deregulation occurs. Under the regulations, property becomes deregulated public utility property when it ceases to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer. This depends on the particular facts and circumstances and is more appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis. Some commentators suggested that the final regulations should permit flowthrough of ADITC reserves even in cases in which ratepayers do not bear the cost of the asset giving rise to the credit. The comments generally argued that this would be consistent with Congressional intent to share the benefit of the credit between ratepayers and shareholders. The IRS and Treasury Department agree that the Code provides for such sharing in the typical situation in which ratepayers ultimately bear the full cost of an asset through ratemaking depreciation. On the other hand, neither the statutory provision nor the legislative history provides any indication that Congress intended for ratepayers to share in benefits attributable to costs that they do not bear. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble of the 2005 proposed regulations, the final regulations retain the proposed rules relating to flowthrough of the ADITC reserve and rate base restoration, including the rule allowing flowthrough consistent with the 2003 proposed regulations during the transition period. Commentators suggested that the use of terms other than deregulated public utility property in the preamble of the 2005 proposed regulations implies that a distinction exists between property that ceases to be public utility property because of deregulation and property that ceases to be public utility property because of a disposition or other event. To clarify that this is not the case, the term deregulated public utility property is the sole term used in the final regulations to describe property that ceases to be public utility property. One commentator questioned whether the term deregulated public utility property includes normal retirements. The final regulations clarify that they do not apply to ordinary retirements within the meaning of section 1.167(a)-11(d)(3)(ii). One commentator suggested that deregulated public utility property should include property that is public utility property in the hands of a transferee. The commentator further suggested that if the transferee of public utility property will continue the flowthrough of the transferor's EDFIT and ADITC reserves, further flowthrough by the transferor should not be required. The IRS and Treasury Department agree with these suggestions. Accordingly, the final regulations provide, on a prospective basis, that they apply to a taxpayer with respect to public utility property that ceases to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer. Thus, the regulations will apply even if the property remains regulated public utility property in the hands of a transferee. The regulations further provide an exception from the generally applicable rule permitting transferor flowthrough when the transferee will continue flowthrough of the EDFIT reserves. A similar exception was not provided for the ADITC reserve because transferor flowthrough of that reserve does not occur if the transferee, rather than the transferor, is recovering the cost of the property through ratemaking depreciation. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses. Drafting Information The principal author of the regulations is Patrick S. Kirwan, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.46-6 is amended by adding paragraph
(k)to read as follows: § 1.46-6 Limitation in case of certain regulated companies.
(k)*Treatment of accumulated deferred investment tax credits upon the deregulation of public utility property—*
(1)*Scope—*
(i)*In general.* This paragraph
(k)provides rules for the application of former sections 46(f)(1) and 46(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code to a taxpayer with respect to public utility property that ceases, whether by disposition, deregulation, or otherwise, to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer and that is not described in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section (deregulated public utility property).
(ii)*Exception.* This paragraph
(k)does not apply to property that ceases to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer on account of an ordinary retirement within the meaning of § 1.167(a)-11(d)(3)(ii).
(2)*Ratable amount—*
(i)*Restoration of rate base reduction.* A reduction in the taxpayer's rate base on account of the credit with respect to public utility property remaining to be restored does not, at any time during the period, exceed the restoration percentage of the recoverable stranded cost of the property at such time. For this purpose—
(A)The stranded cost of the property is the cost of the property reduced by the amount of such cost that the taxpayer has recovered through regulated depreciation expense during the period before the property becomes deregulated public utility property;
(B)The recoverable stranded cost of the property at any time is the stranded cost of the property that the taxpayer will be permitted to recover through rates after such time; and
(C)The restoration percentage for the property is determined by dividing the reduction in rate base remaining to be restored with respect to the property immediately before the property becomes deregulated public utility property by the stranded cost of the property.
(ii)*Cost of service reduction.* Reductions in the taxpayer's cost of service on account of the credit with respect to public utility property that becomes deregulated public utility property are ratable during the period after the property becomes deregulated public utility property if the cumulative amount of the reduction during such period does not, at any time during the period, exceed the flowthrough percentage of the cumulative stranded cost recovery for the property at such time. For this purpose—
(A)The stranded cost of the property is the cost of the property reduced by the amount of such cost that the taxpayer has recovered through regulated depreciation expense during the period before the property becomes deregulated public utility property;
(B)The cumulative stranded cost recovery for the property at any time is the stranded cost of the property that the taxpayer has been permitted to recover through rates on or before such time; and
(C)The flowthrough percentage for the property is determined by dividing the amount of credit with respect to the property remaining to be used to reduce cost of service immediately before the property becomes deregulated public utility property by the stranded cost of the property.
(3)*Cross reference.* See § 1.168(i)-(3) for rules relating to the treatment of balances of excess deferred income taxes when public utility property becomes deregulated public utility property.
(4)*Effective/applicability dates—*
(i)*In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of this section, this paragraph
(k)applies to public utility property that becomes deregulated public utility property with respect to a taxpayer after December 21, 2005.
(ii)*Property that becomes public utility property of the transferee.* This paragraph
(k)does not apply to property that becomes deregulated public utility property with respect to a taxpayer an account of a transfer on or before March 20, 2008 if after the transfer the property is public utility property of the transferee.
(iii)*Application of regulation project (REG-104385-01)* . A reduction in the taxpayer's cost of service will be treated as ratable if it is consistent with the proposed rules in regulation project (REG-104385-01) (68 FR 10190) March 4, 2003, and occurs during the period beginning on March 5, 2003, and ending on the earlier of—
(A)The last date on which the utility's rates are determined under the rate order in effect on December 21, 2005; or
(B)December 21, 2007. **Par. 3.** Section 1.168(i)-3 is added to read as follows: § 1.168(i)-3 Treatment of excess deferred income tax reserve upon disposition of deregulated public utility property.
(a)*Scope* —(1) *In general* . This section provides rules for the application of section 203(e) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2146) to a taxpayer with respect to public utility property (within the meaning of section 168(i)(10)) that ceases, whether by disposition, deregulation, or otherwise, to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer and that is not described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (deregulated public utility property).
(2)*Exceptions.* This section does not apply to the following property:
(i)Property that ceases to be public utility property with respect to the taxpayer on account of an ordinary retirement within the meaning of § 1.167(a)-11(d)(3)(ii).
(ii)Property transferred by the taxpayer if after the transfer the property is public utility property of the transferee and the taxpayer's excess tax reserve with respect to the property (within the meaning of section 203(e) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986) is treated as an excess tax reserve of the transferee with respect to the property.
(b)*Amount of reduction.* If public utility property of a taxpayer becomes deregulated public utility property to which this section applies, the reduction in the taxpayer's excess tax reserve permitted under section 203(e) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is equal to the amount by which the reserve could be reduced under that provision if all such property had remained public utility property of the taxpayer and the taxpayer had continued use of its normalization method of accounting with respect to such property.
(c)*Cross reference.* See § 1.46-6(k) for rules relating to the treatment of accumulated deferred investment tax credits when utilities dispose of regulated public utility property.
(d)*Effective/applicability dates* —(1) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, this section applies to public utility property that becomes deregulated public utility property after December 21, 2005.
(2)*Property that becomes public utility property of the transferee.* This section does not apply to property that becomes deregulated public utility property with respect to a taxpayer on account of a transfer on or before March 20, 2008 if after the transfer the property is public utility property of the transferee.
(3)*Application of regulation project (REG-104385-01).* A reduction in the taxpayer's excess deferred income tax reserve will be treated as ratable if it is consistent with the proposed rules in regulation project (REG-104385-01) (68 FR 10190) March 4, 2003, and occurs during the period beginning on March 5, 2003, and ending on the earlier of—
(i)The last date on which the utility's rates are determined under the rate order in effect on December 21, 2005; or
(ii)December 21, 2007. Linda E. Stiff, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 6, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-5619 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service 31 CFR Part 356 [Docket No. BPD GSRS 08-01] Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds—Minimum and Multiple Amounts Eligible for STRIPS, Legacy Treasury Direct, and Certification Requirements AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury” or “We”) is issuing in final form amendments to the Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds. The first change lowers the minimum and multiple par amounts of Treasury marketable notes, bonds, and Treasury inflation-protected securities
(TIPS)that may be stripped from $1,000 to $100. The second change eliminates the provisions allowing depository institutions and dealers to submit customer bids in Treasury marketable securities auctions for securities that will be held in Legacy Treasury Direct. The third change eliminates the requirement that submitters that submit bids by computer provide a written certification that they are in compliance with the auction rules. Finally, this final rule adds technical clarification to the calculation of accrued interest for Treasury bonds and notes. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on March 20, 2008. *Applicability Date:* The changes to 31 CFR 356.31 apply to all Treasury marketable securities eligible for stripping (notes, bonds, plus TIPS issued after January 15, 1985) outstanding on and after April 7, 2008. *Applicability Date:* The change to 31 CFR Part 356, Appendix B, Section I, Paragraph C applies to all Treasury notes, bonds, and TIPS issued on or after the date of the first Treasury marketable securities auction with a $100 minimum purchase amount announced through an offering announcement. *Applicability Date:* The changes to 31 CFR 356.2, 356.4, 356.16, 356.17 and 356.25 apply to all auctions of Treasury marketable securities beginning with the first Treasury marketable securities auction with a $100 minimum purchase amount announced through an offering announcement. ADDRESSES: You may download this final rule from the Bureau of the Public Debt's Web site at *http://www.treasurydirect.gov* or from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Web site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.* It is also available for public inspection and copying at the Treasury Department Library, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To visit the library, call
(202)622-0990 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Santamorena (Executive Director), Chuck Andreatta (Associate Director), or Aaron Gregg (Government Securities Specialist), Bureau of the Public Debt, Government Securities Regulations Staff,
(202)504-3632 or e-mail us at *govsecreg@bpd.treas.gov. Policy Information:* Karthik Ramanathan (Director), Department of the Treasury, Office of Debt Management,
(202)622-2042 or e-mail at *debt.management@do.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Uniform Offering Circular (UOC), in conjunction with the announcement for each auction, provides the terms and conditions for the sale and issuance to the public of marketable Treasury bills, notes, bonds and TIPS. 1 1 The Uniform Offering Circular was first published as a final rule on January 5, 1993 (58 FR 412). The circular, as amended, is codified at 31 CFR part 356. A final rule converting the UOC to plain language and making certain other minor changes was published on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 45202). This final rule revises 31 CFR 356.31 of the UOC, which describes the terms and conditions for STRIPS (Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities). The STRIPS program allows holders of book-entry (electronic) Treasury notes, bonds, and TIPS to separate those securities into their separate principal and interest components. Holders then can hold or trade these components separately as zero-coupon securities. Currently, the minimum par amount of notes, bonds, and TIPS that may be stripped is $1,000, 2 and any higher par amount to be stripped must be in a multiple of $1,000. 2 *See* 65 FR 66174 (November 3, 2000) for a previous UOC amendment to minimum and multiple par amounts that may be stripped. On August 1, 2007, Treasury announced that it was considering lowering the minimum and multiple par amounts that bidders may bid for in Treasury marketable securities auctions from $1,000 to $100 to put Treasury securities within the reach of all individual investors. 3 On October 31, 2007, Treasury announced that it will lower the minimum purchase amounts for Treasury auctions from $1,000 to $100 after the release of the new auction processing system. 4 This will also allow holders to hold and transfer all outstanding Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and TIPS in minimum and multiple par amounts of $100. The announced change does not require a change to the UOC because it will be incorporated in each auction announcement. 5 3 *See* August 2007 Quarterly Refunding Statement by Anthony W. Ryan, Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets (August 1, 2007) *http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp515.htm.* 4 *See* November 2007 Quarterly Refunding Statement by Anthony W. Ryan, Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets (October 31, 2007) *http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp655.htm.* 5 *See* 31 CFR 356.2, which defines “minimum to bid” and “multiple to bid” as “the smallest amount of a security that may be bid for in an auction as stated in the auction announcement” and “the smallest additional amount of a security that may be bid for in an auction as stated in the auction announcement,” respectively. This final rule makes the minimum and multiple par amounts of Treasury notes, bonds, and TIPS eligible to be stripped consistent with the lower minimum and multiple par amounts that bidders may bid for in marketable Treasury securities auctions. The change to the minimum and multiple par amounts eligible to be stripped (31 CFR 356.31) will apply on April 7, 2008, and thereafter to all outstanding Treasury marketable securities eligible for stripping (notes, bonds, plus TIPS issued after January 15, 1985). The final rule also eliminates the provisions allowing depository institutions and dealers to submit customer bids in Treasury marketable securities auctions for securities that will be held in Legacy Treasury Direct (31 CFR 356.2, 356.4, 356.17, and 356.25). This functionality is not available in the new Treasury Automated Auction Processing System (TAAPS). Our experience has been that the volume of such bids has been so low that it does not justify continuing to provide the service in the new TAAPS. Investors will still be able to submit their own bids directly to Legacy Treasury Direct. This final rule also eliminates the requirement that submitters that submit bids by computer provide a written certification that they are in compliance with the auction rules, because it is unnecessary in view of other requirements. The current UOC states that, by submitting bids or other information in an auction, submitters are deemed to have certified that they are in compliance with the auction rules; that the information provided regarding any bids for their own account is accurate and complete; and that the information provided with regard to any bids for customers accurately and completely reflects information provided by those customers or their intermediaries (31 CFR 356.16(a)). The new TAAPS will also state on the login screen that, by bidding in an auction, bidders are certifying that they will comply with the auction rules. In addition, this final rule adds language to Appendix B, Section I, Paragraph C of the UOC to specify how we calculate accrued interest for a par amount of securities less than $1,000. Procedural Requirements This final rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866. The notice and public procedures requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply, under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Since a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 356 Bonds, Federal Reserve System, Government Securities, Securities. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 31 CFR part 356 is amended as follows: PART 356—SALE AND ISSUE OF MARKETABLE BOOK-ENTRY TREASURY BILLS, NOTES, AND BONDS (DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY CIRCULAR, PUBLIC DEBT SERIES NO. 1-93) 1. The authority citation for part 356 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3102 *et seq.* ; 12 U.S.C. 391. 2. Amend § 356.2 to revise the definition of “Autocharge agreement” to read as follows: § 356.2 What definitions do I need to know to understand this part? *Autocharge agreement* means an agreement in a format acceptable to Treasury between a submitter or clearing corporation and a depository institution that authorizes us to:
(1)Deliver awarded securities to the book-entry securities account of a designated depository institution in the commercial book-entry system, and
(2)Charge a funds account of a designated depository institution for the settlement amount of the securities. 3. Amend § 356.4 to revise paragraph
(c)as follows: § 356.4 What are the book-entry systems in which auctioned Treasury securities may be issued?
(c)*Legacy Treasury Direct.* In this system, we maintain the book-entry securities of account holders directly on the records of the Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the Treasury. Bids for securities to be held in Legacy Treasury Direct are submitted directly to us. From time to time, Treasury may announce that certain securities to be offered will not be eligible for purchase or holding in Legacy Treasury Direct. § 356.16 [Amended] 4. In § 356.16, remove paragraph (a)(4). 5. Amend § 356.17 to revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 356.17 How and when do I pay for securities awarded in an auction?
(c)* * *
(1)*Bidding and payment by computer or by telephone.* If you are bidding by computer or by telephone, you must pay for any securities awarded to you by debit entry to a deposit account. 6. Amend § 356.25 to revise paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 356.25 How does the settlement process work?
(b)*Payment by authorized charge to a funds account.* Where the submitter's method of payment is an authorized charge to the funds account of a depository institution as provided for in § 356.17 (d), we will charge the settlement amount to the specified funds account on the issue date. 7. Amend § 356.31 to revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) to read as follows: § 356.31 How does the STRIPS program work?
(b)* * *
(1)*Minimum par amounts required for STRIPS.* The minimum par amount of a fixed-principal security that may be stripped is $100. Any par amount to be stripped above $100 must be in a multiple of $100.
(c)* * *
(1)*Minimum par amounts required for STRIPS.* The minimum par amount of an inflation-protected security that may be stripped is $100. Any par amount to be stripped above $100 must be in a multiple of $100. 8. Amend Appendix B to part 356 by revising Section I, Paragraph C, Subparagraph 4, to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 356—Formulas and Tables C. Accrued Interest 4. We round all accrued interest computations to five decimal places for a $1,000 par amount, using normal rounding procedures. We calculate accrued interest for a par amount of securities greater than $1,000 by applying the appropriate multiple to accrued interest payable for a $1,000 par amount, rounded to five decimal places. We calculate accrued interest for a par amount of securities less than $1,000 by applying the appropriate fraction to accrued interest payable for a $1,000 par amount, rounded to five decimal places. Gary Grippo, Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5713 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-39-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 45 CFR Part 670 RIN 3145-AA48 Conservation of Antarctic Animals and Plants AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, The National Science Foundation
(NSF)is amending its regulations to designate additional Antarctic Specially Managed Areas
(ASMA)and one new Historical Site or Monument (HSM). Further, NSF is amending its regulations to reflect that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (Consultative Parties), at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIX (ATCM XXIX) in Edinburgh, Scotland adopted Measure 4
(2006)which removed all species of the genus Arctocephalus, Fur Seals, from the list of Specially Protected Species in Appendix A to Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (The Protocol). These additions only reflect measures already adopted by the Consultative Parties at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bijan Gilanshah, Office of the General Counsel, at 703-292-8060, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 2401, *et seq.* ) implements the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Annex II of the Protocol contains provisions for conservation of native Antarctic plants and animals. Annex V contains provisions for the protection of specially designated areas. Section 2405 of title 16 of the ACA directs the Director of the National Science Foundation to issue such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to implement Annexes II and V to the Protocol. The Antarctic Treaty Parties periodically adopt measures to establish additional specially protected areas, specially managed areas and historical sites or monuments in Antarctica. This rule is being revised to add two new Antarctic Specially Managed Areas and one new Historical Site and Monument. Finally, this revision reflects a decision by the Consultative Parties to de-list all species of the genus Arctocephalus, Fur Seals, from the list of Specially Protected Species in Appendix A to Annex II to the Protocol. The Fur Seals will continue to receive comprehensive protection under the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. No public comment is needed because the addition of these areas or sites and the delisting merely implements measures adopted by the Consultative Parties at ATCM XXIX. Determinations NSF has determined, under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866, that this rule is not a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, exempt from the notice requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act and from regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Although this rule is exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it has nonetheless been determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), these amendments to the existing regulations do not change the collection of information requirements contained in NSF's existing regulations, which have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 670 Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. Dated: March 17, 2008. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel. Pursuant to the authority granted by 16 U.S.C. 2405(a)(1), NSF hereby amends 45 CFR part 670 as set forth below: PART 670—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 670 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 2405, as amended. 1. Section 670.25 is revised to read as follows: § 670.25 Designation of specially protected species of native mammals, birds, and plants. The following species has been designated as Specially Protected Species by the Antarctic Treaty Parties and is hereby designated Specially Protected Species: Common Name and Scientific Name Ross Seal—Ommatophoca rossii 2. Section 670.29 is revised to read as follows: § 670.29 Designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, Specially Managed Areas and Historic Sites and Monuments.
(a)The following areas have been designated by the Antarctic Treaty Parties for special protection and are hereby designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA). The Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as amended, prohibits, unless authorized by a permit, any person from entering or engaging in activities within an ASPA. Detailed maps and descriptions of the sites and complete management plans can be obtained from the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Room 755, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. ASPA 101 Taylor Rookery, Mac. Robertson Land, East Antarctica ASPA 102 Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac. Robertson Land, East Antarctica ASPA 103 Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica ASPA 104 Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands ASPA 105 Beaufort Island, Ross Sea (see ASPA 124) ASPA 106 Cape Hallett, Victoria Land ASPA 107 Emperor Island, Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula (see Measure 1, 2002) ASPA 108 Green Island, Berthelot Islands, Antarctic Peninsula ASPA 109 Moe Island, South Orkney Islands ASPA 110 Lynch Island, South Orkney Islands ASPA 111 Southern Powell Island and adjacent islands, South Orkney Islands ASPA 112 Coppermine Peninsula, Robert Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 113 Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbour, Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago ASPA 114 Northern Coronation Island, South Orkney Islands ASPA 115 Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula ASPA 116 ‘New College Valley’, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island ASPA 117 Avian Island, off Adelaide Island, Antarctic Peninsula ASPA 118 ‘Cryptogam Ridge’, Mount Melbourne, Victoria Land ASPA 119 Davis Valley and Forlidas Pond, Dufek Massif ASPA 120 ‘Pointe-Géologie Archipelego’, Terre Adélie ASPA 121 Cape Royds, Ross Island ASPA 122 Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island ASPA 123 Barwick and Balham Valleys (see Measure 1, 2002), Victoria Land ASPA 124 Cape Crozier, Ross Island ASPA 125 Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 126 Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 127 Haswell Island ASPA 128 Western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island ASPA 129 Rothera Point, Adelaide Island ASPA 130 `Tramway Ridge', Mount Erebus, Ross Island ASPA 131 Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land ASPA 132 Potter Peninsula, `25 de Mayo' (King George) Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 133 Harmony Point, west coast of Nelson Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 134 Cierva Point and offshore islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula ASPA 135 North-eastern Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land ASPA 136 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land ASPA 137 Northwest White Island, McMurdo Sound ASPA 138 Linnaeus Terrace, Asgaard Range, Victoria Land ASPA 139 Biscoe Point, Anvers Island ASPA 140 Parts of Deception Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 141 `Yukidori Valley', Langhovde, Lützow-Holmbukta ASPA 142 Svarthamaren, Mühlig-Hofmannfjella, Dronning Maud Land ASPA 143 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land ASPA 144 `Chile Bay' (Discovery Bay), Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 145 Port Foster, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 146 South Bay, Doumer Island, Palmer Archipelago ASPA 147 Ablation Valley-Ganymede Heights, Alexander Island ASPA 148 Mount Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula ASPA 149 Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Island, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 150 Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay, King George Island ASPA 151 Lions Rump, King George Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 152 Western Bransfield Strait off Low Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 153 Eastern Dallmann Bay off Brabant Island, Palmer Archipelago ASPA 154 Botany Bay, Cape Geology, Victoria Land ASPA 155 Cape Evans, Ross Island ASPA 156 Lewis Bay, Mount Erebus, Ross Island ASPA 157 Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds, Ross Island ASPA 158 Hut Point, Ross Island ASPA 159 Cape Adare, Borchgrevink Coast ASPA 160 Frazier Islands, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica (see Measure 2, 2003) ASPA 161 Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea ASPA 162 Mawson's Huts, Commonwealth Bay, George V Land, East Antarctica (see Measure 2, 2004) ASPA 163 Dakshin Gangotri Glacier, Dronning Maud Land ASPA 164 Scullin and Murray Monoliths, Mac. Robertson Land, East Antarctica ASPA 165 Edmonson Point, Wood Bay, Ross Sea ASPA 166 Port-Martin, Terre Adélie ASPA 167 Hawker Island, Vestfold Hills, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica
(b)The following areas have been designated by the Antarctic Treaty Parties for special management and are hereby designated as Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA). Detailed maps and descriptions of the sites and complete management plans can be obtained from the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Room 755, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. ASMA 1 Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands ASMA 2 McMurdo Dry Valleys, Southern Victoria Land ASMA 3 Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, George V Land ASMA 4 Deception Island, South Shetland Islands ASMA 5 Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, South Pole ASMA 6 Larsemann Hills, East Antarctica
(c)The following areas have been designated by the Antarctic Treaty Parties as historic sites or monuments (HSM). The Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as amended, prohibits any damage, removal or destruction of a historic site or monument listed pursuant to Annex V to the Protocol. Descriptions of the sites or monuments can be obtained from the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Room 755, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. HSM 1 Flag mast at South Pole HSM 2 Rock cairn and plaques on Ongul Island, Prins Harald Kyst HSM 3 Rock cairn and plaque on Proclamation Island, Enderby Land HSM 4 Bust and plaque at `Pole of Inaccessibility' HSM 5 Rock cairn and plaque at Cape Bruce, Mac. Robertson Land HSM 6 Rock cairn and canister at Walkabout Rocks, Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land HSM 7 Stone and plaque at Mabus Point, Queen Mary Land HSM 8 Monument sledge and plaque at Mabus Point, Queen Mary Land HSM 9 Cemetery on Buromskiy Island, Queen Mary Land HSM 10 Observatory at Bunger Hills, Queen Mary Land HSM 11 Tractor and plaque at Vostok Station HSM 14 Ice cave at Inexpressible Island, Terra Nova Bay, Scott Coast HSM 15 Hut at Cape Royds, Ross Island HSM 16 Hut at Cape Evans, Ross Island HSM 17 Cross at Cape Evans, Ross Island HSM 18 Hut at Hut Point, Ross Island HSM 19 Cross at Hut Point, Ross Island HSM 20 Cross on Observation Hill, Ross Island HSM 21 Hut at Cape Crozier, Ross Island HSM 22 Hut at Cape Adare, Borchgrevink Coast HSM 23 Grave at Cape Adare, Borchgrevink Coast HSM 24 Rock cairn at Mount Betty, Queen Maud Range HSM 26 Installations at Barry Island, Debenham Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 27 Cairn with plaque at Megalestris Hill, Petermann Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 28 Cairn, pillar and plaque at Port Charcot, Booth Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 29 Lighthouse on Lambda Island, Melchior Islands, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 30 Shelter at Paradise Harbour, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 32 Monolith on Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 33 Shelter, cross and plaque on Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 34 Bust on Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 35 Cross and statue on Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 36 Plaque at Potter Cove, King George Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 37 Statue at Trinity Peninsula, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 38 Hut of Snow Hill Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 39 Hut at Hope Bay, Trinity Peninsula, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 40 Bust, grotto, statue, flag mast, graveyard and stele at Hope Bay, Trinity Peninsula, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 41 Hut and grave at Paulet Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 42 Huts, magnetic observatory and graveyard at Scotia Bay, Laurie Island, South Orkney Islands HSM 43 Cross at `Piedrabuena Bay', Filchner Ice Front, Weddell Sea HSM 44 Plaque at Nivlisen Ice Front, Princesse Astrid Kyst, Dronning Maud Land HSM 45 Plaque at Metchnikoff Point, Brabant Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 46 Buildings and installations at Port-Martin, Terre Adélie HSM 47 Building on Ĭle des Pétrels, Terre Adélie HSM 48 Cross on Ĭle des Pétrels, Terre Adélie HSM 49 Pillar at Bunger Hill, Queen Mary Land HSM 50 Plaque at Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 51 Grave and cross at Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 52 Monolith at Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 53 Monolith and plaques on Elephant Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 54 Bust on Ross Island HSM 55 Buildings and artifacts on Stonington Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 56 Remains of hut and environs at Waterboat Point, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 57 Plaque at “Yankee Bay” (Yankee Harbour), MacFarlane Strait, Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 59 Cairn on Half Moon Beach, Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 60 Plaque and cairn at 'Penguins Bay', Seymour Island, James Ross Island archipelago HSM 61 ‘Base A’ at Port Lockroy, Goudier Island, off Wiencke Island, Antarctic Peninsula HSM 62 ‘Base F (Wordie House)’ on Winter Island, Argentine Islands HSM 63 ‘Base Y’ on Horseshoe Island, Marguerite Bay, western Graham Land HSM 64 ‘Base E’ on Stonington Island, Marguerite Bay, western Graham Land HSM 65 Message post on Foyn Island, Possession Islands HSM 66 Cairn at Scott Nunataks, Alexandra Mountains HSM 67 Rock shelter ‘Granite House’ at Cape Geology, Granite Harbour HSM 68 Depot at Hells Gate Moraine, Inexpressible Island, Terra Nova Bay HSM 69 Message post at Cape Crozier, Ross Island HSM 70 Message post at Cape Wadworth, Coulman Island HSM 71 Whaling station at Whalers Bay, Deception Island HSM 72 Cairn on Tryne Islands, Vestfold Hills HSM 73 Memorial Cross, Lewis Bay, Ross Island HSM 74 Wreckage of sailing ship, Elephant Island, South Shetland Islands HSM 75 ‘A Hut’, Pram Point, Ross Island HSM 76 Ruins of base ‘Pedro Aguirre Cerda’, Pendulum Cove, Deception Island HSM 77 Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, George V Land HSM 78 Memorial Plaque at India Point, Humboldt Mountains, Wohlthat Massif, central Dronning Maud Land HSM 79 Lilie Marleen Hut, Mt. Dockery, Everett Range, Northern Victoria Land HSM 80 Amundsen's Tent HSM 81 Rocher du Débarquement (Landing Rock) HSM 82 Monument to the Antarctic Treaty and Plaque [FR Doc. E8-5689 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 6 and 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 07-110] Sections 225 and 255 Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Services
(VoIP)AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's 2007 Report and Order concerning *Sections 225 and 255 Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Services (VoIP).* This notice is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date of the rules. DATES: The rules published at 72 FR 43546, August 6, 2007, are effective March 20, 2008. 47 CFR 6.11(a), 6.11(b), 6.18(b), 6.19, 64.604(a)(5), 64.604(c)(1)(i), 64.604(c)(1)(ii), 64.604(c)(2), 64.604(c)(3), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(G), 64.604(c)(6)(v)(A)( *3* ), 64.604(c)(6)(v)(G), 64.604(c)(7) and 64.606(b). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boehley, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
(202)418-7395. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces that, on January 15, 2008, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order concerning *Sections 225 and 255 Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Services (VoIP),* FCC 07-110, published at 72 FR 43546, August 6, 2007. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1111. The Commission publishes this notice as announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1111, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* 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). Synopsis As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 15, 2008, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 6.11(a), 6.11(b), 6.18(b), 6.19, 64.604(a)(5), 64.604(c)(1)(i), 64.604(c)(1)(ii), 64.604(c)(2), 64.604(c)(3), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(G), 64.604(c)(6)(v)(A)(3), 64.604(c)(6)(v)(G), 64.604(c)(7) and 64.606(b). The OMB Control Number is 3060-1111. The total annual reporting burden for respondents for these collections of information, including the time for gathering and maintaining the collection of information, is estimated to be: 5,711 respondents, a total annual hourly burden of 149,962 hours, and $5,711,000 in total annual costs. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5690 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 RIN 0648-AU29 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 15A AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of agency action. SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval of Amendment 15A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). Amendment 15A updates management reference points for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy based on the most recent stock assessments; modifies rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper and black sea bass; defines rebuilding strategies for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy; and redefines the minimum stock size threshold for the snowy grouper stock. The measures contained in the subject amendment are intended to both comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and satisfy a U.S. district court's rulings to establish rebuilding plans for South Atlantic snowy grouper and black sea bass and approve, amend or reject Amendment 15A by March 14, 2008. DATES: NMFS approved Amendment 15A, without modification, on March 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McGovern, telephone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: John.McGovern@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. On December 28, 2007, NMFS published a notice of availability of Amendment 15A and requested public comment (72 FR 73747). After considering the public comments received, NMFS approved Amendment 15A, without modification, on March 14, 2008. The background rationale for the measures in Amendment 15A are contained in the amendment and the notice of availability and are not repeated here. Comments and Responses NMFS received 17 comment letters on Amendment 15A and the associated environmental impact statement. Two of these comment letters supported the proposed actions. The remaining comment letters opposed one or more of the proposed actions for the reasons summarized below. *Comment 1* : One group stated Amendment 15A should consider management measures to address the Magnuson-Stevens Act's requirement that an amendment designed to rebuild an overfished fishery must also allocate both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among sectors of the fishery. *Response* : Amendment 15A is intended to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and satisfy a United States district court ruling that found a plan to rebuild snowy grouper and black sea bass should have been included in Amendment 13C to the FMP because the two species were overfished. Amendment 15A establishes the rebuilding plans but does not contain measures with direct regulatory effect; instead it specifies management reference points, a timeframe for rebuilding overfished stocks, and a strategy for how overfished stocks will be rebuilt within the specified timeframe, as required by the August 17, 2007, court opinion and October 2, 2007, court order. Although Amendment 13C did not have a rebuilding plan, the amendment included measures with direct regulatory effect necessary to end overfishing of snowy grouper and black sea bass, and therefore, initiate recovery of those fisheries. The court determined the measures in Amendment 13C were “fair and equitable” and in compliance with national standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council is considering additional management measures in Amendments 15B and 17 to ensure both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits would continue to be fairly and equitably allocated among fishing sectors during the rebuilding periods for snowy grouper and black sea bass. *Comment 2* : One group of commenters supported fast-track strategies for fish stock recoveries. The commenters indicated such strategies would minimize the number of years needed for recovery, benefitting fish stocks as well as fishermen once stocks recovered. *Response* : The Council evaluated a broad range of alternatives for the establishment of rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper and black sea bass. A rebuilding schedule for red porgy was established through Amendment 12, in 2000. The alternatives considered for each proposed rebuilding schedule action in Amendment 15A ranged from those that would rebuild stocks in the shortest amount of time in the absence of fishing mortality to those that would rebuild stocks over the longest period of time allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For snowy grouper, the Council's preferred alternative would rebuild the stock in 34 years, which is the maximum time allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, shorter rebuilding schedules would not be expected to rebuild the snowy grouper stock to biomass at the maximum sustainable yield, even if retention was entirely prohibited due to the incidental capture of snowy grouper in this multi-species snapper-grouper fishery. As release mortality is 100 percent, it is expected these fish would still be caught incidentally and discarded dead when fishermen target co-occurring species. Amendment 13C reduced the allowable catch of snowy grouper to the extent that fishermen are not targeting the species and now only retain them as incidental catch. The preferred rebuilding strategy alternative for snowy grouper would retain the total allowable catch
(TAC)at 102,960 lb (46,702 kg) whole weight until modified by future action. By keeping TAC at this level, fishing mortality would decrease to levels less than the fishing mortality associated with the maximum sustainable yield and thereby increase the probability that biomass would increase. The preferred 10-year rebuilding schedule for black sea bass is also the longest allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, the shortest rebuilding schedule (6 years) would not be expected to rebuild black sea bass to the biomass at the maximum sustainable yield, even if retention of black sea bass is entirely prohibited. Black sea bass is part of a multi-species fishery, and it is expected that these fish would still be caught incidentally and discarded dead when fishermen target co-occurring species. The Council's preferred rebuilding schedule would rebuild the stock to healthy levels, over a slightly longer time period and still within the allowable time frame, which would be less detrimental to the fishing community dependent on the resource. *Comment 3* : Two commenters stated that despite NMFS' assertion that the best available data were used in the analyses supporting Amendment 15A, they remain concerned that the stock assessments do not provide adequate estimates of stock status. *Response* : Status determinations for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy were derived from the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process. The SEDAR process involves a series of three workshops designed to ensure each stock assessment reflects the best available scientific information. The findings and conclusions of each SEDAR workshop are documented in a series of reports, which are ultimately reviewed and discussed by the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). SEDAR participants, Council advisory committees, the Council, and NMFS staff reviewed and considered these and other concerns about the adequacy of the data. The Council's snapper-grouper committee acknowledged that while stock assessment findings are uncertain, there is no reason to assume that uncertainty leads to overly pessimistic or optimistic conclusions about stock status. Therefore, uncertainty should not be used as a reason to avoid taking action. The adequacy of these data was at issue in the recent civil action, *North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc., et al.* , v. *Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary, United States Department of Commerce* , Case No. 06-1815 (D.D.C. 2006), where the plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that actions taken in Amendment 13C were inconsistent with national standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that all FMPs and plan amendments “be based upon the best scientific information available.” The same assessment information used in Amendment 13C was used in Amendment 15A to specify management reference points, and rebuilding plans for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy. In the court's opinion issued in the North Carolina Fisheries Association case, the judge concluded “the Secretary was not obliged to 'sit idly by' when faced with overfishing and overfished stocks simply because the data available to him may have been less than perfect. In sum, the Secretary's decision to act on the basis of the existing information easily meets the standard of rationality required of him.” The NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) reviewed and certified Amendment 13C and its supporting analyses as being based on the best available scientific information. The SSC and the SEFSC have determined Amendment 15A is based on the best scientific information available. *Comment 4* : One commenter stated the cumulative impacts section of the EIS is inadequate because impacts from previous regulations on fishery participants in all fisheries available to them in the past have been ignored in the analysis. *Response* : Amendment 15A, which is integrated with the EIS, qualitatively discusses cumulative impacts (Section 4.5.2), and concludes that “it is not possible to differentiate actual or cumulative regulatory effects from external cause-induced effects.” It also states, “In general, it can be stated, however, that the regulatory environment for all fisheries has become progressively more complex and burdensome, increasing, in tandem with other adverse influence, the pressure on economic losses, business failure, occupational changes, and associated adverse pressures on associated families, communities, and industries. Some reverse of this trend is possible and expected.” The integrated document also contains a discussion of potential adverse long-term socioeconomic impacts to some current fishery participants (Section 4.5.2). This section states that “Where losses are projected, as is always the case, individual losses may be so severe that some entities may not be able to remain in business long enough to reap the benefits of a recovered stock and increased long-term resource stability. Thus, even though the fishery as a whole may benefit, individual participants may suffer. However, as is also the case, failure to take action can result in persistent foregone economic benefits, or more severe corrective action with greater adverse impacts if the period under which recovery is mandated is substantially shortened.” The integrated document also incorporates, by reference, discussion of impacts associated with the regulatory measures associated with Amendment 13C to the FMP. *Comment 5* : It is likely the recreational allocation of snowy grouper will be quite small, and any snowy grouper rebuilding schedule will be compromised until the Council can put into place an adequate method of accounting for recreational landings. *Response* : Amendment 15B to the FMP, currently under development, includes alternatives to address allocation of snowy grouper. Furthermore, Amendment 15B includes alternatives that could modify the regulations on the sale of bag limit caught fish and, thus, improve accounting of snowy grouper landings. Amendment 17 to the FMP is being developed to establish annual catch limits for species experiencing overfishing, including snowy grouper. Amendment 17 would also include accountability measures to ensure annual catch limits in the recreational and commercial sectors are not exceeded and overfishing is prevented where possible and mitigated if it occurs. *Comment 6* : Six individuals commented that the fishery would be best served by utilizing the rebuilding plan options which have the least effect on fishing effort and harvest as possible. They feel that the shorter the rebuilding schedule the more substantial socioeconomic impacts on fishermen will be, and they would like those impacts minimized as much as possible. These commenters also noted that fishing effort could shift to other species. *Response* : The Council's preferred rebuilding schedule alternatives for snowy grouper and black sea bass are the maximum length of time allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and would have less of a negative short-term social and economic impact than shorter rebuilding schedules. Some effort shift to other fisheries could occur as a result of management measures imposed through Amendment 13C, however, longer rebuilding schedules are likely to cause less effort shifting than shorter rebuilding schedules, which would require more stringent management regulations. An 18-year rebuilding schedule for red porgy was specified through Amendment 12 to the FMP in 2000. Also, the Council considered the rebuilding strategy alternatives that would have the greatest benefit to the stock and result in the least short-term negative socioeconomic effects. Red porgy is no longer undergoing overfishing, and the stock is rebuilding. An increase in TAC for 2009 reflects the improved status of the red porgy fishery. Snowy grouper and black sea bass are experiencing overfishing and are overfished. Amendment 13C implemented management measures over a 3-year period with the intent of ending overfishing by 2009. At the December 2007 Council meeting, the Council elected to set the snowy grouper TAC at the 2008 level of 102,960 lb (46,702 kg) whole weight rather than increase TAC to 109,360 lb (49,605 kg) whole weight in 2009. The Council was concerned that the 2009 TAC was based on the yield at FMSY, which would be considered to be a limit rather than a target under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. By keeping catch at 2008 levels, fishing mortality would decrease below FMSY and the probability that overfishing had ended would increase. The preferred rebuilding strategy for black sea bass would also retain TAC at the 2008 levels and could rebuild sea bass 2 years ahead of schedule resulting in a very large increase in the allowable catch once the stock is rebuilt. As a result, this alternative is expected to provide the greatest long-term, biological effects to the stock and associated ecosystem as well as significant economic benefits. *Comment 7* : One individual suggested that a more reasonable approach to end overfishing would be through the establishment of a two-for-one permit buyout program, and suggested anyone holding a permit is entitled to an equal allocation of fish. *Response* : A two-for-one permit buyout program would address the number of allowed participants over the long term but would not immediately or directly address overfishing. The Council implemented a 2 for 1 permit program in 1998, and many snapper grouper species are still experiencing overfishing. The possibility of using a limited access privilege
(LAP)program in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is being considered in Amendment 18 to the FMP. Such a program would further limit fishery participation and would be created with the intent to prevent and/or end overcapitalization of the fishery. Allocations for certain snapper-grouper species are being considered in snapper-grouper Amendment 15B, Amendment 16, and a comprehensive allocation amendment, which are in development. *Comment 8* : One group recommended against using the maximum amount of time possible under the law (T(max)) to rebuild severely depleted fish stocks such as snowy grouper. *Response* : Rebuilding schedules of 12 and 23.5 years (Alternatives 2 and 3 in Amendment 15A, respectively) would not be expected to rebuild the snowy grouper stock to the biomass at the maximum sustainable yield, even if retention of snowy grouper is entirely prohibited. Snowy grouper is part of a multi-species fishery. Even with no harvest, one would expect snowy grouper to be caught incidentally and released dead by fishermen when co-occurring species were targeted. Snowy grouper is a deepwater species, and release mortality is estimated to be 100 percent; therefore, no incidentally captured snowy grouper would survive. Actions taken in Amendment 13C substantially reduced the allowable harvest of snowy grouper to a level that would likely be taken incidentally. The longest rebuilding schedule allows fishermen to retain snowy grouper that are incidentally caught rather than release dead fish. Snowy grouper probably would not be able to rebuild in a shorter timeframe due to bycatch mortality when fishermen target co-occurring species. The Council is considering the formation of a deepwater snapper-grouper unit in Amendment 17 to the FMP. The Council believes that managing the deepwater species as a unit would decrease discards of these species with high release mortality rates. *Comment 9* : One commenter stated the definition of minimum stock size threshold
(MSST)at 0.75*SSB MSY is inappropriate and suggested retaining the MSST definition at (1-M)*SSB MSY . *Response* : The current definition of MSST is (1-M)*SSB MSY or 0.5*SSB MSY , whichever is greater, where M equals the natural mortality rate. The relatively low estimation of M (0.12) produces an MSST that is similar to SSB MSY . By modifying the current definition of MSST for snowy grouper to 0.75*B MSY , the Council is hoping to avoid a situation where the natural variation in recruitment causes the stock biomass to frequently alternate between an overfished and rebuilt condition, even if the fishing mortality rate applied to the stock was within the limits specified by the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Such a situation could create administrative difficulties if the overfished threshold was met and a rebuilding plan was unnecessarily triggered. Regardless of which MSST definition is chosen, snowy grouper is overfished and biomass is well below the threshold that would trigger a rebuilding plan. The recent SEDAR assessment estimates current biomass of snowy grouper at 18 percent of SSBMSY. *Comment 10* : Several commenters objected to the modified F rebuilding strategies because they either fail to achieve optimum yield, or fail to prevent overfishing by using TACs set at F MSY . *Response* : Achievement of OY has been specified in Amendment 15A through the selection of the preferred rebuilding strategy alternatives for snowy grouper, red porgy, and black sea bass. An estimate of OY is the target when a stock is rebuilt and plans can transition from rebuilding to OY management. OY for each of the subject species has been defined in the amendment. The preferred rebuilding strategies are expected to achieve the OY target for each species within the rebuilding schedule time frame, while minimizing to the extent practicable, adverse socioeconomic impacts. Prior to December 2007, the preferred rebuilding strategy for snowy grouper was based on the yield at F MSY . However, in response to comments from The Ocean Conservancy, the Council, at its December 2007 meeting, added a new sub-alternative for snowy grouper that would not increase the TAC; thereby setting yield based on a fishing mortality rate less than F MSY . By leaving the TAC at the 2008 level, the allowable fishing mortality rate will decrease below FMSY and increase the chance overfishing will end and the stock will rebuild. In addition, based on the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, it would be difficult to justify increasing the TAC before a stock assessment indicates overfishing is ended. A 2010 assessment update for snowy grouper will determine if management measures have been effective in ending overfishing, and if so, warrant a subsequent increase in TAC, which would help achieve optimum yield. The TAC for red porgy, as specified through the preferred rebuilding strategy alterative is set below the yield when fishing at MSY and will result in a fishing mortality rate that approximates F OY . For black sea bass, the TAC in 2009 is established at the yield when fishing at MSY. However, with the preferred constant catch strategy, the TAC for 2009 (847,000 lb (384,193 kg whole weight) would remain in effect beyond 2009 until modified. Holding catch at constant levels as the stock rebuilds would be expected to gradually reduce the fishing mortality rate to F OY by 2010, increasing the chance overfishing will end and the stock will rebuild. The preferred rebuilding strategy alternatives for snowy grouper, red porgy, and black sea bass are expected to provide the greatest long-term, biological effects to the stocks and associated ecosystem throughout their entire rebuilding time frames. *Comment 11* : Any fishery management plan must include measures that minimize bycatch and unavoidable bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. Amendment 15A does not contain any discussion of bycatch reduction in the deepwater complex. *Response* : Although no measures in the amendment involve regulatory changes, the preferred rebuilding alternative for red porgy that would increase TAC beyond 2008 levels accounts for an estimate of increase in dead discards. Preferred rebuilding strategies for snowy grouper and black sea bass keep TAC at 2008 levels; however, other alternatives considered that increase TAC in 2009 account for an increased estimate of dead discards that could occur. In addition, Amendment 15A contains a discussion on bycatch of snowy grouper in the bycatch practicability section and includes estimates of the magnitude of bycatch that are currently occurring in the commercial and recreational sectors. Furthermore, Appendix E to Amendment 15A provides estimates of dead discards that could occur in fisheries for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy as a result of new management measures imposed through Amendment 13C. Discussion in Amendment 15A also indicates snowy grouper bycatch could be reduced through future actions in Amendment 17. Alternatives in Amendment 17 include actions to establish a deepwater unit composed of co-occurring species and would establish management measures for the deepwater unit including an aggregate trip limit and a quota. Alternatives would also consider prohibiting all purchase and sale of species in the unit after any of the individual quotas are met. Although some bycatch of species in the unit could occur when targeting shelf edge species, management of the deepwater species as a unit is expected to substantially reduce bycatch of snowy grouper. Amendment 17 would also establish ACLs and accountability measures for snowy grouper and other species experiencing overfishing, further reducing bycatch. *Comment 12* : One individual stated that Amendment 15A would prevent the remaining fishermen from making a living, and would increase the cost of fish. *Response* : Retaining existing values for the reference points and subsequent allowance of harvest at the respective MSY value may lead to excessive exploitation, precipitating imposition in the future of more restrictive management measures and reductions in economic and social benefits. Once the resource is rebuilt, consistent with the rebuilding plans in Amendment 15A, the specification of MSY/OY and the related increase in total allowable harvest and reduced harvest restrictions would support increased economic and social benefits of the fishery. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 14, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5655 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 55 Thursday, March 20, 2008 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 RIN 3150-AH45 [NRC-2008-0030] Decommissioning Planning; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3812), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)published for public comment a proposed rule on Decommissioning Planning. The public comment period for this proposed rule was to have expired on April 7, 2008. The Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)and several other stakeholders have requested an extension of 90 days. After due consideration of the requests and considering the staff's previous efforts at public outreach during this rulemaking, the NRC has decided to extend the comment period by 30 days, until May 8, 2008. In a letter dated February 29, 2008, NEI requested the additional time to provide review of the legacy site issues raised in the proposed rule, and to provide input to the NRC staff regarding the specific proposed rule text, potential unintended consequences of the rulemaking, and draft regulatory guidance released with the proposed rule. DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on May 8, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH45 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, etc., will not be removed from your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at 301-415-1677. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 301-415-1677). *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking, including comments, may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin O'Sullivan, telephone
(301)415-8112, e-mail, *kro2@nrc.gov* of the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5650 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket No. PRM-51-1] New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-51-1) submitted by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (now New England Coalition (NEC)). The petitioner requested that the NRC revise the value for radon-222 in Table S-3, “Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” because it did not disclose the long-term and long-range health effects of radon gas released from uranium mill tailings piles. ADDRESSES: For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7163; e-mail: *MTL@nrc.gov.* Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's public document Room (PDR), O-1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at: *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4123; e-mail *SXS4@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 25, 1975, the NRC docketed a petition for rulemaking (PRM-51-1) dated November 19, 1975, filed by Roisman, Kessler, and Cashdan, on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, now New England Coalition (NEC). The petitioner requested the Commission to issue a number of amendments to 10 CFR part 51, Table S-3, “Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” and to postpone resolution of pending applications for construction or operation of nuclear power plants and to reassess the conclusions for previous authorizations for construction or operation of nuclear power plants. Table S-3 lists environmental data to be used by applicants and the NRC staff as the basis for evaluating the environmental effects of the portions of the fuel cycle that occur before new fuel is delivered to the plant and after spent fuel is removed from the plant site for light-water reactors (LWRs). The petitioner stated that: 1. Table S-3 “seriously understates” the impact on human safety and health by disregarding the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides and that the health effects of uranium mining and milling listed in the table fail to disclose the long-term and long-range health effects of radon-222 released from tailings piles; 2. The health effects of krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel reprocessing plants are underestimated in Table S-3; 3. Releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included in Table S-3; 4. Table S-3, by the exclusive use of the term “man-rems,” does not provide a meaningful representation of these health effects, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more easily comprehended consequence of the fuel cycle activities; and 5. The magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone is so great as to alter the previous judgment on these matters and to require, as a minimum, a reassessment of previous conclusions to authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and a postponement of resolution of all pending applications for construction or operation authority until final resolution of this issue by the Commission. The NRC published a notice of receipt of petition on January 16, 1976 (41 FR 2448). The notice of receipt invited interested persons to submit written comments on the petition. Comments were received from 10 organizations. The Commission resolved the public comments as discussed in a **Federal Register** notice published on April 14, 1978 (43 FR 15613). Response to the Petition In its April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission resolved the petitioner's first issue (concerning the value for radon-222 in Table S-3), in part, when it amended Table S-3 by deleting the value for radon-222. 1 The Commission, however, deferred instituting any rulemaking on the radon issue, including the insertion of a revised value for radon-222, pending generic consideration of the issue. The generic consideration of the radon-222 value in Table S-3 remained the one outstanding item of this petition and is now resolved by this denial, as explained under the “Reasons for Denial” section below. 1 The original radon-222 value in Table S-3 was 75 curies followed by the statement, “Principally from mills—maximum annual dose rate < 4 percent of average natural background within 5 mi of mill. Results in 0.06 man-rem per annual fuel requirement.” As reflected in the April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission resolved the second and third issues raised by the petition when the Commission published a revised Table S-3 on March 14, 1977 (42 FR 13803). In this revision, the Commission added carbon-14 to the table and revised the release values for krypton-85 and tritium upwards. Differences in the petitioner's release estimates and those of the NRC staff were due to differences in the models used. The basis for the NRC models is described in detail in NUREG-0116, “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” October 1976, and NUREG-0216, “Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” March 1977. As further reflected in the April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission resolved the petitioner's fourth issue, namely, that Table S-3 does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects, by amending Footnote 1 to Table S-3 to indicate that health effects are not covered in the table and may be litigated in individual cases. Finally, regarding the petitioner's fifth issue, the Commission in the April 14, 1978 notice, denied the petitioner's request to halt the licensing of reactors and to reopen all proceedings where construction or operation had already been authorized. The Commission concluded that the actions it had taken (as described previously) effectively addressed the concerns raised by the petitioner. Reasons for Denial The NRC is denying the remaining outstanding issue from the petition for rulemaking (PRM-51-1) submitted by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (now New England Coalition or NEC), namely, the revision of the value for radon-222 in Table S-3. The update to Table S-3 was delayed because, by the mid-1980s, there were no new applications for construction of nuclear power plants, nor, at that time, were any future ones predicted. Consequently, there was no regulatory need to update Table S-3 and competing priorities for rulemaking resources eventually resulted in the cessation of activities on the table. Since the mid-1980s, the NRC has revisited the issue of revising the value for radon-222 in Table S-3 on more than one occasion, but in each case higher priority rulemakings led to a halt in these efforts. The NRC is denying the remaining outstanding issue in PRM-51-1, revising the value for radon-222 in Table S-3 of 10 CFR part 51, because the NRC has made a generic determination that the radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, including those from radon-222 emissions, on individuals off-site will remain at or below the Commission's regulatory limits, and as such, are of small significance. The NRC described this generic determination and conclusion in chapter 6 of the Generic Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, May 1996, (NUREG-1437), 2 which was in turn, based upon the findings made in NRC and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)rulemakings as described below. 2 NUREG-1437, Ch. 6., § 6.2.2.1 (pp. 6-8 to 6-18), § 6.2.4 (pp. 6-27 to 6-28), and § 6.6 (pp. 6-87 to 6-88). EPA and NRC Regulatory Programs Section 84a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)requires NRC to conform its regulations to EPA's regulations promulgated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, 42 U.S.C. 2022, 7901-7942 (UMTRCA) for the protection of the public health, safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession, transfer, and disposal of byproduct material as defined under section 11(e)(2) of the AEA, *e.g.* , uranium mill tailings. EPA's regulations at Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192 set forth a design standard requiring that the tailings or wastes from mill operations be covered to provide reasonable assurance that radon released to the atmosphere from the tailings or wastes will not exceed an average of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m 2 -s) flux for 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for 200 years. 3 In 1985, the NRC conformed its regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, to EPA's regulations at Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192, by adopting the 20 pCi/m 2 -s flux standard. 4 The NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A apply to NRC or Agreement State licensed mill tailings piles. 3 40 CFR 192.32(b); *see also* 48 FR 45926 (October 7, 1983). 4 50 FR 41852 (October 16, 1985). An EPA risk assessment conducted as part of the 1989 EPA National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants rulemaking (promulgating 40 CFR part 61, subparts T and W), consisting of a two-step analysis, established that compliance with the 20 pCi/m 2 -s flux standard for radon emissions from uranium mill tailings piles would result in an estimated lifetime risk of cancer to the maximally exposed individual of approximately 1E-4, a level determined by EPA to be safe, under the first step of the analysis, and provided an ample margin of safety under the second step, which considered additional factors such as cost and technological feasibility. 5 5 54 FR 51654, 51682-83 (December 15, 1989); *see also* 59 FR 36280, 36281, 36287-88 (July 15, 1994). On June 1, 1994, the NRC published a final rule which conformed its regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, to amendments made by EPA in 1993 to Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192. 6 The EPA amendments and the conforming NRC rule added provisions to fill a regulatory gap related to the timing and monitoring of NRC or Agreement State licensed mill tailings piles. In a related July 15, 1994 rulemaking, EPA found that the NRC regulatory program concerning radon-222 emissions from these tailings piles “protect public health with an ample margin of safety” and that the “NRC's implementation criteria set forth a rigorous program governing the reclamation of the disposal sites so that closure will
(1)last for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable, but in any event at least 200 years, and
(2)limit radon release to 20 pCi/m 2 -s throughout that period.” 7 6 59 FR 28220 (June 1, 1994). The EPA final rule amending 40 CFR part 192, Subpart D was published on November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60340). 7 59 FR 36280, 36283 (July 15, 1994). NUREG-1437 In 1996, the NRC incorporated the above EPA regulatory findings and NRC standards reflected in 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A into NUREG-1437. Specifically, the NRC “supplements the data on environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 * * * to extend the coverage of impacts to 222 Rn, 99 Tc, higher fuel enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and license renewal of up to 20 additional years of operation.” 8 8 NUREG-1437, § 6.1 (p. 6-1). NUREG-1437 made the following findings: • Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling operations and as emissions from mill tailings; • The long-term integrity of the coverings for stabilized mill tailings piles must be maintained because the EPA and NRC regulatory standards (40 CFR part 192 and 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A) require certification of stability and the control of average radon flux levels to 20 pCi/m 2 -s; • The design and implementation of the radon cover and erosion protection features are the primary reliance for maintaining radon emissions within the 10 CFR part 40 limits and significant failure of the coverings for stabilized mill tailings piles is considered highly unlikely; • A combination of engineering and institutional controls will most likely result in compliance with the 20 pCi/m 2 -s flux standard for the foreseeable future; • For long-term radon releases from stabilized mill tailings piles, the NRC staff has assumed that the tailings would emit, per reference reactor year (RRY), 9 1 Ci/year for 9 The “reference reactor” is a model 1000-MW(e) light-water reactor. One reference reactor year
(RRY)would be one year of operation of such model reactor. • 100 years (covering fully intact), 10 Ci/year for the next 400 years (covering partially failed), and 100 Ci/year for periods beyond 500 years (covering failed). 10 10 NUREG-1437 sets forth the NRC staff's radon-222 data in tabular format: Table 6.1 (p. 6-10) shows data for radon releases from mining and milling operations and mill tailings piles for each RRY; Table 6.2 (p. 6-10) shows data for the estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment from mining and milling for each RRY ( *i.e.* , prior to closure or stabilization of the tailings piles); Table 6.3 (p. 6-12) shows population-dose commitments from unreclaimed open-pit mines for each RRY; and Table 6.4 (p. 6-12) shows population-dose commitments from stabilized tailings piles for each RRY. • The doses from radon-222 emissions from mines and tailings piles consist of tiny doses summed over large populations (the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same population); and • As each uranium fuel cycle facility licensee must ensure that the radioactive dose from such facility is within the limit and be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), the doses to individual members of the public are considered by the NRC staff to be small. NUREG-1437 served as the basis for the NRC rulemaking which amended 10 CFR part 51, insofar as license renewal impact considerations are concerned. This rulemaking summarized the NUREG-1437 findings regarding the impacts of radon-222 emissions and stated that “impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 and technetium 99 are small.” 11 The NRC provided ample opportunity for public comment on both the draft and final versions of NUREG-1437 and the related amendments to part 51, including the issue concerning the impacts of radon-222 emissions. 12 11 11 61 FR 28467, 28494 (June 5, 1996), now codified at 10 CFR part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1. 12 56 FR 47016, 47022 (September 17, 1991) (proposed rule); 61 FR 28467, 28477-78, 28494 (June 5, 1996) (final rule). The June 5, 1996 final rule provided for an additional 30 day comment period, requesting that commenters give “specific attention” to a number of issues, including “the cumulative radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle.” 61 FR 28467. In a December 18, 1996 final rule, the NRC responded to the one comment received on the radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, from EPA, which requested clarification on the collective effects, over time, on human populations. 61 FR 66537, 66539-40 (December 18, 1996). The December 18, 1996 final rule made minor clarifying and conforming changes to 10 CFR part 51. Although NUREG-1437 concerned license renewals, the NRC notes that the NUREG-1437 radon-222 impact determination is not unique to the fuel cycle for renewed licenses and can be applied to all NRC actions. In this regard, the NRC has received, and expects to continue to receive, applications for licenses to build and operate new nuclear power plants. For these applications, the NRC assesses the validity of the value for radon-222 in the environmental report submitted by the applicant for a construction permit, early site permit, or combined license for a nuclear power reactor to determine any impacts to the environment. The NRC staff scales data to the model reactor described in NUREG-1437 to arrive at figure for the expected radon-222 emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed plant. The health, safety and environmental impacts of the expected radon-222 emissions are evaluated on an application-specific basis, using the NUREG-1437 generic analysis and assessment. 13 13 *See, e.g.* , NRC final environmental impact statements for early site permits to construct new nuclear reactor facilities at Dominion's North Anna Power Station, in Louisa County, Virginia (NUREG-1811, § 6.1.1.5); Exelon's Clinton Power Station, near Clinton, Illinois (NUREG-1815, § 6.1.1.5); and Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, near Port Gibson, Mississippi (NUREG-1817, § 6.1.1.5). The NRC has determined that, at this time, revising the value for radon-222 in Table S-3, as requested in PRM-51-1, does not provide any benefit over the NRC's current application-specific review. In Staff Requirements Memorandum COMGBJ-07-0002, dated August 6, 2007, the Commission agreed that PRM-51-1 should be closed. Conclusion For the reasons described above, the NRC finds that a rulemaking to revise the radon-222 value in Table S-3 is not necessary. The NRC's prior deletion of the value for radon-222 in Table S-3 did grant, in part, the petitioner's request regarding the value for radon-222. The Commission is now denying the remaining outstanding issue of the petitioner's request by not revising Table S-3 to include a revised value for radon-222. Closing the petition does not preclude the NRC from taking future regulatory action to amend Table S-3. The NRC will continue to evaluate, as part of its annual review of potential rulemaking activity, the need to amend Table S-3. For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this petition. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-5647 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0154; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-10] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Canon, GA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Canon, GA. Airspace is needed to support new Area Navigation (RNA V) Global Positioning System
(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that have been developed for Franklin County Airport. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL)is needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR)operations at Franklin County Airport. The operating status of the airport will change from Visual Flight Rules
(VFR)to include IFR operations concurrent with the publication of the SIAP. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Franklin County Airport, Canon, GA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2008-0154; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0154; Airspace docket No. 08-ASO-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at Canon, GA. Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that have been developed for Franklin County Airport and controlled airspace is required to support these procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part, A subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it proposes to establish Class E airspace at Canon, GA. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO GA E5 Canon, GA [New] Franklin County Airport, GA (Lat. 34°20′25″ N., long. 83°07′51″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 6.6-mile radius of the Franklin County Airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 26, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5573 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), concerning the petition to list as endangered a population of brook trout *(Salvelinus fontinalis)* known as coaster brook trout throughout its known historic range in the conterminous United States. We find that the petition contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the coaster brook trout. At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition. To ensure that the status review of the coaster brook trout is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding the coaster brook trout throughout its range. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species if we initiate a listing action. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 19, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030, Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road—Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316; telephone 517-351-8470; facsimile 517-351-1443. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at
(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on coaster brook trout throughout its range. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of coaster brook trout. We are seeking information regarding:
(1)The species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
(2)The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)Disease or predation;
(d)The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3)Management programs for the conservation of the coaster brook trout. We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be submitted to *http://www.regulations.gov* before midnight Eastern Time on the date specified in the DATES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name, city, state, country, and postal
(zip)code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov* . If you provide personal identifying information in addition to the required items specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information submitted with the petition. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information for a 90-day petition finding, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is “that 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)). If we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the species status. The Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter, Huron Mountain Club, and Marvin J. Roberson filed a petition dated February 22, 2006, with the Secretary of the Interior to list as endangered the naturally spawning lake-dwelling coaster brook trout throughout its known historic range in the conterminous United States and to designate critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identifies itself as such and includes the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). On behalf of the petitioners, Peter Kryn Dykema, Secretary of the Huron Mountain Club, submitted supplemental information dated May 23, 2006, in support of the original petition. This supplemental information provides further information on the species status and biology, particularly for the Salmon Trout River. In a letter to the petitioners dated April 27, 2006, we explained that we would not be able to address their petition at that time, due to the need to address higher priority listing actions. In 2007, the Service directed funds to address the coaster brook trout 90-day finding. On September 13, 2007, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue over the Service's failure to make a determination within 1 year of receiving the petition, as to whether the coaster brook trout warrants listing. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, the Service is to make a finding, to the maximum extent practicable within 90 days of receiving a petition, regarding whether it presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Further, the Act requires that within 12 months after receiving a petition found to present substantial information, the Service must make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on December 17, 2007, for failure to make a timely finding. In making this finding, we considered information provided by the petitioners, as well as information readily available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and the associated regulations is based on using the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold described above. This finding does not consider critical habitat, because any decision concerning the need for, or identification of, areas to consider for critical habitat would occur only if we decide to prepare a proposed rule to list the species. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the U.S. population of coaster brook trout. Species Information Brook trout ( *Salvelinus fontinalis* ) are a member of the char genus in the family Salmonidae; they live in well-oxygenated streams, rivers, and lakes of northeastern North America (Scott and Crossman 1973, pp. 30, 213). Some brook trout populations are adfluvial or anadromous, migrating from lakes and oceans (respectively) into tributary streams for feeding and spawning (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, pp. 4-5; Ryther 1997, pp. 1-34). Coaster brook trout are a life history form of brook trout that spend a portion of their life cycle in the Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320). These brook trout are known as “coasters” because they spend part of their life cycle along the coast of a lake. Some coaster brook trout subpopulations or runs are adfluvial and migrate from Lake Superior to tributary streams to spawn; other coaster brook trout subpopulations are lacustrine and remain in Lake Superior throughout their life cycle (Quinlan 1999, p. 15). Coaster brook trout mature later, live longer, and grow larger than stream resident brook trout (Becker 1983, p. 318; Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 10). Historically, coaster brook trout occurred in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior (Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549) and in more than 50 streams along the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota shores of Lake Superior (Newman *et al.* 2003, pp. 34-38). They have been extirpated in Lakes Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). Self-sustaining subpopulations or spawning runs remain in four streams in the U.S. portion of Lake Superior (Quinlan 2008). Population levels in these streams are considered low (Quinlan 2008). No harvest is allowed in the four streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations in the United States, (Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10). Coaster brook trout may be harvested within the waters of Lake Superior itself through angling, subject to a 20-inch (51-centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker 2007). Few coaster brook trout from the Salmon Trout River subpopulation exceed this size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21). Additionally, no harvest is allowed in Lake Superior waters that are within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10). In Canada, coaster brook trout populations historically occurred in approximately 60 streams (Newman *et al.* 2003, pp. 31-33). Data suggest that spawning runs remain in a few Canadian streams in Lake Superior, and numbers in these streams are described in general terms as being very low overall (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1). Coaster brook trout populations are also present in Lake Nipigon (Ontario). Recent estimates suggest that the Lake Nipigon spawning population has declined 75 percent compared to the population level in the 1930s (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1). However, neither the petition nor information readily available to the Service provides information regarding the population size in the 1930s, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of the estimated decline. Coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested by anglers in both Lake Superior and its tributaries, subject to size, bag, and seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, pp. 48-49). Coaster brook trout are not being considered for protection under Canada's Species at Risk Act (Chase 2008). Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment The petitioners asked us to list the naturally spawning anadromous (lake-run) coaster brook trout throughout its known historical range in the conterminous U.S.; they asserted that the Salmon Trout River coaster population is reproductively isolated from the in-stream resident brook trout population and should be considered a Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Section 3 of the Act defines the term “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). In determining whether an entity constitutes a DPS and is, therefore, listable under the Act, we follow the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy identifies three elements we are to consider in making a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS for listing under the Act:
(1)The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs;
(2)The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and
(3)The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (that is, whether the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, is endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). This finding considers whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned coaster brook trout may be a DPS, and if so, whether the information indicates that listing may be warranted. Discreteness Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions:
(1)It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or
(2)It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petition asserts that coaster brook trout are “distinguished from stream resident brook trout by behavior” and information submitted in association with the petition notes that coaster brook trout “are distinguished from stream resident brook trout by behavior, i.e. anadromy—and by physiology (they grow much larger, and may be longer-lived).” Information in our files supports this assertion because, unlike resident brook trout that remain in streams, coaster brook trout are adfluvial or lacustrine, spending part or all of their life cycle in the Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320; Newman *et al.* 2003, p. 39). Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be discrete from stream resident brook trout because of differences in behavior and physiology. The petition also asserts that coaster brook trout (of the Salmon Trout River) are “separated from coaster populations in the Nipigon River area [in Canada] by an international boundary.” Further, the petition states that coaster brook trout programs currently are administered and implemented by a wide variety of Federal, State, private, and international institutions, and that the result has been duplicated effort, inadequate communication, and sometimes contradictory policies and practices. Finally, the petition states that the entire reach of the Salmon Trout River in Marquette County
(MI)is owned by the Huron Mountain Club (HMC, one of the petitioners) and that, since 1995, HMC has prohibited its members from killing coaster brook trout there. Information in our files or otherwise readily available to us supports the statement that the coaster brook trout described in the petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are separated from coaster brook trout subpopulations in the Nipigon River area and elsewhere in Canada by an international boundary, and in addition, this information indicates that the boundary delimits differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 4; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008 p. 48-49). More specifically, differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms between the United States and Canada relate to allowable harvest of coaster brook trout and the fishing regulations that dictate this harvest. In the United States, coaster brook trout:
(1)May not be harvested in the four remaining streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations (Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10);
(2)may be harvested in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior within the lake itself, subject to a 20-inch (51- centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker 2007); and
(3)may not be harvested in Lake Superior waters within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National Park, which would protect the subpopulations of Isle Royale National Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10). The lack of coasters in the Salmon Trout River subpopulation that exceed the 20-inch (51-centimeter) size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21) indicates that few coasters meet the minimum size limit in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior where harvest is allowed. In comparison, coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested within Lake Superior itself and its tributaries, subject to size, bag, and seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, p. 48-49), but we have no information indicating that there are any locations in Canadian waters occupied by coaster brook trout where their harvest is not allowed. Therefore, we find there is substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned U.S. coaster brook trout may be discrete from coaster brook trout in Canada because of an international boundary that delimits differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms. Significance Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological significance to the species to which it belongs. The DPS policy states that if a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the discreteness criteria, its biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. Under the DPS policy, our consideration of significance may include, but is not limited to:
(1)Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique or unusual for the taxon;
(2)Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon;
(3)Evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4)Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Information Provided in the Petition on Significance The petition asserts that the coaster brook trout of the Salmon Trout River are significant to the brook trout taxon because their loss “would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.” Information in our files indicates that lake-dwelling coaster brook trout historically occurred in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan (Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549), but are now extirpated from Lakes Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). The coaster brook trout described in the petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are the last remaining lake-dwelling brook trout in Lake Superior (Newman et. al. 2003, p. 39); thus if the coaster subpopulations in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale disappear, lake-dwelling brook trout would be extirpated throughout the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the U.S. coaster brook trout may be significant to the species to which it belongs, based on evidence that loss of the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. DPS Conclusion We have reviewed the information presented in the petition and have evaluated it in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, we determine whether a petition presents substantial information that a population may be a DPS. Based on our evaluation described above, we conclude that the petition and information readily available to us do present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be discrete and significant within the meaning of our DPS policy, and therefore may constitute a DPS. To meet the third element of the DPS policy, we evaluate the level of a population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. This involves an analysis, referred to as a threats analysis, pursuant to the five listing factors specified in section 4 of the Act. We thus proceeded with an evaluation of whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow. Five-Factor Analysis Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We may list a taxon on the basis of any one of the following factors:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)Disease or predation;
(D)Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)Other manmade or natural factors affecting its continued existence. Consistent with our regulations for making 90-day findings (50 CFR 424.14(b)), we evaluated whether the threats to the U.S. population of coaster brook trout presented in the petition would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted. The following evaluation of these threats was based on information provided or cited in the petition and found to be substantial, and information from our files used to evaluate the information in the petition. Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition asserts that the following conditions under Factor A threaten the coaster brook trout: Dams and river diversions; toxic pollution related to organophosphorus compounds (that is, as used in pesticides), deoxygenation via decomposition of organic material and other effluents from paper mills and other sources, and mercury (from fungicides and wood pulp treatment); stream acidification via acid rain, acid spills, and the proposed Kennecott's sulfide mine; changes in water temperature and flow due to deforestation and reservoir release, and dams and diversions; and siltation. The information presented in the petition regarding dams and diversions, toxic pollution, deoxygenation via decomposition of organic material, acid level changes in streams, and changes in water temperature and flow is general. The petition does not explain how the concerns expressed would result in the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook trout. Also, the petition acknowledges that, with regard to toxic pollution, deoxygenation, and changes in water temperature and flow, little research has been done on their possible impacts to coaster brook trout in the Upper Great Lakes. The petitioners assert that siltation due to increases in road building may threaten coaster brook trout in the Salmon Trout River. In particular, the petitioners cite a road wash-out in 2005 that deposited 80 tons of sediment into the river. The petitioners assert that siltation can affect the reproductive success of coaster brook trout by filling in holding areas of migrating adults; filling hollows that afford protection for juveniles; filling interstitial spaces in the substrate that are required for proper water flow and egg oxygenation; and decreasing the amount of rooted plants and algae, which in turn may reduce the biomass of benthic invertebrates (food for young coaster brook trout). Additionally, the petitioners assert that siltation can interfere with fish respiration and impact water flow and clarity, which may subsequently impede migration and feeding. Two references are given to support the above statements regarding the effects of siltation on fish (Mills 1989, Shearer 1992); these citations were not listed in the References section of the petition. Additionally, we did not have these two references in our files, and we could not find them using a literature search. However, readily available sources in our files corroborated the effects of siltation on fish reproduction, respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). Similarly, although no reference was provided for the 2005 siltation event, we concur that the event took place and that future road washouts in the Salmon Trout River could result in impacts to the coaster brook trout downstream (Baker 2007). Therefore, based principally on information related to siltation, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook trout. Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes With regard to Factor B, the petition asserts that sport fishing and commercial fishing threaten the coaster brook trout. However, the information presented is limited to noting that a commercial fishery existed on many rivers used by coaster brook trout in the 19th century, and that the extremely low number of extant coaster brook trout means almost none will be caught by commercial vessels. The petition also states that both the Huron Mountain Club and Isle Royale National Park have restrictions on keeping coaster brook trout that may be caught during sport fishing. The petition does not present any information indicating there is overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, and we have no information in our files indicating that there is any such overutilization. Consequently, we find that the petition does not present substantial information for Factor B. Factor C. Disease or Predation The petition does not provide information pertaining to Factor C. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information in relation to this factor. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms With regard to Factor D, the petition asserts the following: there is no single government entity with overall program authority for managing coaster brook trout; there is inadequate authority to prevent conflicting government policies and programs, land-use practices, and toxic pollution; there is over-reliance on hatchery production and stocking; program funding is inadequate; and there is a lack of public education and involvement in coaster brook trout restoration. The petition also asserts that existing programs are inadequate to provide for the long-term viability of *Salvelinus fontinalis* in the U.S. and the restoration and protection of its habitat. Other than the two sentences making these very general assertions, the petition presents no information or explanation as to why the petitioned coaster brook trout is threatened as a result of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information in relation to Factor D. Factor E. Other Manmade or Natural Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The petition asserts that the following factor under Factor E threatens the coaster brook trout: Competition with rainbow trout, coho salmon, and brown trout. However, the petition concludes that it is doubtful “that competition played a large role in reducing coaster brook trout and there is no direct evidence to suggest that this has happened along large areas of the Lake Superior shoreline” (p. 20). Consequently, the petition does not provide substantial information with respect to competition. The petition also asserts that small population size may threaten the continued survival of the coaster brook trout population in the Salmon Trout River. Recent surveys have estimated that the average annual spawning population in the Salmon Trout River is fewer than 200 individuals; this average may be an underestimate given limitations of the gear and methods (Huckins, 2006). The petition compares this average annual spawning population to the number of bull trout *(Salvelinus confluentus)* that spawned in the Jarbidge River annually when it was emergency-listed (50-125 individuals) (63 FR 42757; August 11, 1998). The petition also compares the average to the definitions of a strong subpopulation (greater than 500 spawners) and depressed population (fewer than 500 spawners) given in the Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout (63 FR 31647; June 10, 1998).” Information in our files supports the conclusion of a depressed subpopulation in the Salmon Trout River (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 4). Surveys also indicate that coaster brook trout numbers are low in the three locations where self-sustaining populations occur on Isle Royale (National Park Service 2007, p. 10; Quinlan 2008). The annual spawning population at Tobin Harbor may be less than 150 (National Park Service 2007; p. 10). The sizes of the annual spawning populations at Siskiwit River and Washington Creek are unknown but believed to be low (Quinlan 2008). Although coaster brook trout have been stocked into several streams along the U.S. shoreline of Lake Superior including Whittlesey Creek
(WI)and Grand Portage Creek (MN), none of these stocking programs has resulted in self-sustaining populations (Newman *et al.* 2003, p. 39; Quinlan 2008). Therefore, based on population size, we find that the petition presents substantial information relative to Factor E. Finding We have reviewed the petition, supporting information provided by the petitioners, and information that was readily available in our files or elsewhere (such as the Internet). As described above, the petition presents evidence of siltation in the Salmon Trout River that indicates the present or threatened destruction or modification or curtailment of the habitat or range of coaster brook trout, with impact to fish reproduction, respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). The petition also presents information regarding population size, which indicates the small number estimated to remain poses a risk to the continued survival of the petitioned population of coaster brook trout. We find that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, based on threats posed by siltation and small population size. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of coaster brook trout to determine whether listing the species under the Act is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. References A complete list of all references cited herein is available on request from the East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Author The primary author of this document is the staff of Region 3 Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111. Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated March 12, 2008. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-5618 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 55 Thursday, March 20, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0143] Notice of Decision To Issue Permits for the Importation of Dropwort Leaves With Stems from South Korea Into the Continental United States AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation of dropwort leaves with stems from South Korea into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the risk management analysis. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of dropwort leaves with stems from South Korea. Effective Date: March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alex Belano, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph
(b)of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if:
(1)No comments were received on the pest risk analysis;
(2)the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or
(3)changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk. In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65560-65561, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0143), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of dropwort leaves with stems from South Korea. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on January 22, 2008. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The commenter stated that food should be grown locally and not imported, and that the risks—which the commenter did not specify—associated with imports generally were too great. No changes to the pest risk analysis are necessary based on that comment. 1 To view the notice, the pest risk analysis, and the comment we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0143* . Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States of dropwort leaves with stems from South Korea subject to the following conditions: • The dropwort leaves with stems must be part of a commercial consignment as defined in § 319.56-2. • Each consignment of dropwort leaves with stems must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Korean National Plant Protection Organization
(NPPO)certifying that the dropwort is a product of the Republic of Korea. The NPPO must also include an additional declaration in the phytosanitary certificate that states: “The water dropwort ( *Oenanthe javanica* ) in this shipment was inspected and considered free from Water Dropwort Witches' Broom and *Puccinia oenanthes-stoloniferae* .” These conditions will be listed in the fruits and vegetables manual (available at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf* ). In addition to these specific measures, the dropwort stems with leaves will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables. Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-5651 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.: Notice of Intent To Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Hold Public Scoping Meeting and Prepare an Environmental Assessment. SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an Agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development and/or the Agency, intends to hold a public scoping meeting and prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in connection with possible impacts related to a project being proposed by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Basin Electric), of Bismarck, North Dakota. The proposal for construction and operation of a wind turbine generation facility referred to as the PrairieWinds-ND1 Project (Project), consists of a 77-turbine, 115 megawatt
(MW)facility at a site near Minot, North Dakota. DATES: Rural Development will conduct the public scoping meeting in an open-house format in order to provide information and solicit comments for the preparation of an EA. The meeting will be held on April 3, 2008, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Central Daylight Time, North Central Research Extension Center, 5400 Highway 83 South, Minot, North Dakota (approximately 1 mile south of Minot on U.S. Highway 83). ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the EA, or for further information, contact: Barbara Britton, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone:
(202)720-1414 or e-mail: *barbara.britton@wdc.usda.gov* , or Kevin L. Solie, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., 1717 East Interstate Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58503-0564, telephone:
(701)355-5495 or e-mail: *ksolie@bepc.com* . A proposal development document—Alternative Evaluation and Site Selection Study—is available for public review at Rural Development or Basin Electric, at the addresses provided in this notice, and at the Minot Public Library, 516 2nd Ave., SW., Minot, North Dakota 58701. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Basin Electric proposes to construct a new 115 MW wind generation facility in north-central North Dakota. The Project would include seventy-seven
(77)1.5 MW wind turbine generators. A wind resource assessment study conducted in the area projects a net capacity factor in the upper thirty percent range. Power from the facility would be supplied to Basin Electric's customers through an interconnection with the Integrated System (IS), of which the Western Area Power Administration (Western) is the control area operator. Western is a federal power marketing agency with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Western is being requested to participate as a cooperating agency in the Environmental Assessment. Basin Electric is requesting Rural Development to provide financing for the proposed project. Alternatives to be considered by the Agency include no action, purchased power, load management, other renewable energy sources, and alternative site locations. Questions and comments regarding the proposed project should be received by Rural Development in writing by May 3, 2008, to ensure that they are considered in this environmental impact determination. From information provided in the study mentioned above, and using input provided by government agencies, private organizations, and the public, Rural Development will prepare the EA. The EA will be available for review and comment for 30 days after distribution. Following the 30-day comment period, Rural Development will prepare either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Notices announcing the availability of the EA and a FONSI, as appropriate, will be published in the **Federal Register** and in local newspapers. Any final action by the Agency related to the proposed projects will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations and completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in the USDA Rural Utilities Service Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794). Dated: March 13, 2008. Mark S. Plank, Director, Engineering and Environmental Staff, USDA/Rural Development/Utilities Programs. [FR Doc. E8-5602 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 080306392-8393-01] RIN 0648-ZB89 Postsecondary Internship Program (PIP); Extension of Award Period AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(DOC)is publishing this notice to allow for the extension of the award period for an additional four-month period of funding, on a non-competitive basis, to awards of current Postsecondary Internship Program
(PIP)recipients who will be completing the third year of partnership with DOC on May 31, 2008. The **Federal Register** notice (69 FR 68125, November 23, 2004) and Federal Funding Opportunity
(FFO)announcement that solicited applications for the program established the total project award period for cooperative agreements under the Postsecondary Internship Program as three years and three months (March 1, 2005-May 31, 2008). This extension of time will permit DOC's Office of Human Resources Management
(OHRM)to implement an overall program review, consider potential enhancements and revisions of the program scope, work requirements and performance measures for the PIP. It is OHRM's intent to assess the future direction of the program especially in outlining initiatives for successful and strategic management of human capital. DATES: The award period and related funding, if approved by the DOC Grants Officer, will commence on June 1, 2008, and will continue through September 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Adam D. Santo, Project Manager, United States Department of Commerce, Office of Human Resources Management, Room 5204, 1400 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Mr. Santo may be reached by telephone at
(202)482-4286 and by e-mail at *asanto@doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postsecondary Internship Program
(PIP)was developed as one vehicle the DOC uses to promote participation of minorities in Federal programs as mandated by Executive Orders and statutes. Title 5, section 7201 of the U.S. Code requires that each Executive agency conduct a continuing program for the recruitment of members of minorities to address under representation of minorities in various categories of Federal employment. Executive Order 13256 provides for Executive departments to enter into, among other things, cooperative agreements with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to further the goals of the Executive Order, principally that of strengthening the capacity of HBCUs to provide quality education, and to increase opportunities to participate in and benefit from Federal programs. Executive Order 13230 calls for Executive departments to develop plans to increase opportunities for Hispanic Americans to participate in and benefit from Federal education programs. Executive Order 13270 helps ensure that greater Federal resources are available to the tribal colleges. Executive Order 13216 directs Federal agencies to increase participation of Asian and Pacific Islanders in Federal programs. In order to ensure that the Federal Government can maintain visibility and attractiveness to the “best and brightest” college students, this program supports partnerships between Federal departments and nonprofit or educational institutions. This program continues to improve opportunities for college students to prepare for their transition to the workplace and foster human resource diversity at DOC. In order to provide the program with the necessary time to review and develop its revised program for new awards, this notice amends DOC's prior **Federal Register** notice dated November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68125) to allow for an additional four-month period of funding, on a non-competitive basis, to current PIP recipients who will be completing the third year of partnership with DOC on May 31, 2008. The following recipients whose award period is scheduled to end on May 31, 2008, are affected by this notice and will be eligible for an additional four-month period of funding, on a non-competitive basis, through September 30, 2008: American Indian Science and Engineering Society, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities National Intern Program, Minority Access, Inc., Oak Ridge Associated Universities, and The Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars. The award period and related funding, if approved by the DOC Grants Officer, will commence on June 1, 2008, and will continue through September 30, 2008. The additional period of funding will permit student participation in the PIP through the 2008 summer session of the program (June through August), which coincides with the academic year. Funding for the additional period of time will be at the sole discretion of the DOC using the evaluation criteria and process used to determine the continuation of funding during the original award period (March 1, 2005-May 31, 2008). In making such determinations, the following factors will be considered:
(1)Satisfactory performance by the recipients;
(2)the availability of appropriated funds; and
(3)DOC priorities that support the continuation of the project. DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with this award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC. The OHRM is currently reviewing the program to ensure it meets workforce planning needs. The additional period of funding, as announced in this notice, will allow OHRM the necessary time to review and develop its revised program so that a competition can be held for new awards, which will permit student participation in the PIP commencing with the fall session of 2008. 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 notice. 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 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7201 and Executive Orders 13216, 13230, 13256, and 13270. Dated: March 14, 2008. Deborah A. Jefferson, Director for Human Resources Management, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E8-5660 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Doc. 3-2007] Review of Sourcing Change, Foreign-Trade Subzone 43D, Perrigo Company, Allegan, Michigan, (Ibuprofen Products) Pursuant to 15 CFR Sec. 400.27(d)(3) (vii)(B), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is making available for public inspection and comment the February 25, 2008, submission of the Perrigo Company (Perrigo) in the Board's review of the company's sourcing change (FTZ Doc. 3-2007). A copy of Perrigo's submission is available at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230. Comments on Perrigo's submission (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address above. The closing period for their receipt is April 21, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to May 5, 2008). Dated: March 13, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5665 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2924 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 4, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty new shipper review of forged stainless steel flanges from India. *See Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 56723 (October 4, 2007). This new shipper review covers Hot Metal Forge (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Hot Metal) and the period February 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007. The preliminary results for this new shipper administrative review are currently due no later than March 26, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of a new shipper administrative review within 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. However, if the Department concludes that the case is extraordinarily complicated, it may extend the 180-day period to 300 days. Due to the complexity of the issues the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the normal 180-day deadline. The issues include the unusual circumstances surrounding Hot Metal's third-country sales, the evaluation of the *bona fide* nature of Hot Metal's sales, and the need to conduct additional analysis of its reported cost of manufacturing. As a result, the Department must extend the deadline for the preliminary results of this new shipper administrative review to permit the collection and analysis of additional information concerning Hot Metal's sales processes in both the U.S. and comparison markets, and also concerning its reported cost of manufacture. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act,the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper administrative review until no later than July 24, 2008, which is 300 days from the date of initiation of this review. We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 90 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 14, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5658 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-809 Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: In response to a request by Isibars, Ltd. (Isibars), and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on forged stainless steel flanges from India. This review will determine whether India Steel Works, Ltd. (India Steel) is the successor-in-interest to Isibars. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker 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)482-2924 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 9, 1994, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges from India. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India* , 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994). Pursuant to a February 28, 2003, request from Isibars, the Department conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India. On March 5, 2004, the Department published the final results of the administrative review, determining that a dumping margin of zero percent existed for Isibars for the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10409 (March 5, 2004). On February 26, 2008, Isibars filed a request for a changed circumstances administrative review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India, claiming that Isibars has changed its name to India Steel. Isibars requested that the Department determine whether India Steel is the successor-in-interest to Isibars, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 (2007). In addition, Isibars submitted documentation from the government of India related to its name change. In response to Isibars’ request, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review of this order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances exist to warrant a review of the order. On February 26, 2008, Isibars submitted its request for a changed circumstances review. With this request, Isibars submitted certain information related to its claim that Isibars changed its name to India Steel. Based on the information Isibars submitted regarding a name change, the Department has determined that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist. *See* 19 CFR 351.216(d). In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to’
(1)management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) ( *Plate from Romania* ). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. *See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and *Plate from Romania* , 70 FR 22847. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999). Although Isibars submitted documentation related to its name change, it failed to provide complete supporting documentation for the four elements listed above. Accordingly, the Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to expedite this action by combining the preliminary results of review with this notice of initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). Therefore, the Department is not issuing the preliminary results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review at this time. The Department will issue questionnaires requesting factual information for the review, and will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) and (4), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). The notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated. During the course of this antidumping duty changed circumstances review, the cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise exported and manufactured by India Steel will continue to be the rate established in the final results of the last administrative review for all other manufacturers and exporters not previously reviewed. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 45221 (August 13, 2007). The cash deposit will be altered, if warranted, pursuant only to the final results of this review. This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1). Dated: March 14, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5691 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-848) Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 5, 2008 the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination issued by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”), pursuant to the CIT's remand order, regarding the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh water crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China. *See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States* , Slip Op. 08-27 (March 5, 2008) (“ *Crawfish II* ”). This case arises out of the Department's final results in the administrative review covering the period September 1, 1999 - August 31, 2000. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (“ *Final Results* ”). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in *The Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that *Crawfish II* is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 22, 2002 the Department determined that Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Co. (“Fujian”) and Pacific Coast Fisheries Corp. (“Pacific Coast”) are not affiliated parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Final Results* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. In *Crawfish I* , the CIT found that “Fujian had not made an investment, whether in cash or in the form of a promissory note, in Pacific Coast and that Fujian did not exercise control over Pacific Coast.” *See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States* , 343 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1269 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (“ *Crawfish I* ”). The CIT sustained the Department's determination that the two entities are not affiliated. *Id* . On appeal, the CAFC, holding that section 771(33)(E) of the Act “does not require a transfer of cash or merchandise to prove ownership or control of an organization's shares,” found that Fujian put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it directly or indirectly owned and controlled at least 5%% of Pacific Coast's shares. *See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States* , 477 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The CAFC determined that substantial evidence did not support the Department's determination that Fujian and Pacific Coast are not affiliated and reversed the decision of the CIT in *Crawfish I* . *Id* . Consequently, as mandated by the Federal Circuit, the CIT remanded the *Final Results* to the Department to recalculate the dumping margin treating Fujian and Pacific Coast as affiliated parties. *See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States* , Slip Op. 07-156 (October 30, 2007). Thus, pursuant to the CIT's remand instructions, the Department treated Fujian and Pacific Coast as affiliated parties pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, and recalculated Fujian's dumping margin from 174.04%% to 60.83%%. The Department released the *Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* (“ *Draft Redetermination* ”) to the interested parties for comment on December 11, 2007. On December 18, 2007, in response to a request by Fujian, the Department granted parties an additional two days to submit comments on the *Draft Redetermination* . No party submitted comments by the December 20, 2007 deadline. On January 28, 2008 the Department filed its final results of redetermination pursuant to Court remand with the CIT. *See Final Remand Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* , Court No. 02-00376, (January 28, 2008) (“ *Final Remand Redetermination* ”). On March 5, 2008 the CIT sustained all aspects of the *Final Remand Redetermination* . *See Crawfish II* . In its decision in *Timken* , 893 F.2d at 341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. As a result of the Department's treatment of Fujian and Pacific Coast as affiliated parties, the CIT's decision in this case, on March 5, 2008, constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise the cash deposit rates covering the subject merchandise. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5669 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No.: 071213835-7836-01] RIN: 0648-ZB84 Availability of Draft Guidelines for the Marine Debris Program Grant Program AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for Comments on Proposed Guidelines for NOAA's Marine Debris Program Grant Program. SUMMARY: NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, is issuing guidelines to implement the Marine Debris Program
(MDP)grant program. The MDP was created by the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ) to coordinate, strengthen, and enhance the awareness of marine debris efforts within the agency and work with external partners to support research, prevention, and reduction activities related to the issue of marine debris. The NOAA MDP mission is to support a national and international effort focused on preventing, identifying and removing marine debris and to protect and protect our nation's natural resources, oceans, and coastal waterways from the impacts of marine debris. Within the Act, the MDP is directed to develop formal guidelines for the implementation of a grant program and is seeking comments on the proposed grant program guidelines through this document. DATES: The agency must receive comments concerning this document on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please send your comments by e-mail to: *NOAA.MarineDebris.FRNcomments@noaa.gov* or by mail to: Sarah E. Morison, NOAA Marine Debris Program Coordinator, Office of Response and Restoration, N/ORR, SSMC4, 10th floor, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah E. Morison, Tel: 301-713-2989 x120 or by e-mail at: *Sarah.Morison@NOAA.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA's Marine Debris Program
(MDP)serves as a centralized marine debris capability within NOAA in order to coordinate, strengthen, and increase the visibility of marine debris issues and efforts within the agency, its partners, and the public. The NOAA MDP mission is to support a national and international effort focused on preventing, identifying and removing marine debris and to protect and protect our nation's natural resources, oceans, and coastal waterways from the impacts of marine debris. Additionally, the MDP supports and works closely with various partners across the U.S. to fulfill the Program's mission. The proposed guidelines implementing the MDP's grant program are set forth below. Electronic Access Information on the MDP can be found on the World Wide Web at: *http://marinedebris.noaa.gov,* The proposed guidelines implementing the MDP grant program are set forth below. NOAA MARINE Debris Program Grant Program Guidelines Section 1. Goals and Objectives The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ) establishes a marine debris program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)to reduce and prevent the occurrence and adverse impacts of marine debris on the marine environment and navigation, through activities such as: • Mapping, identification, impact assessment, removal, and prevention; • Reducing and preventing loss of fishing gear; and • Outreach. The Act also directs the Administrator to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to accomplish the Act's purpose of identifying, determining sources of, assessing, reducing, and preventing marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment, living marine resources, and navigation safety. The Act further directs the Administrator to issue guidelines for the implementation of the grant program, including development of criteria and priorities for grants, in consultation with the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee; regional fishery management councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; state, regional, and local governmental entities with marine debris experience; marine-dependent industries; and nongovernmental organizations involved in marine debris research, prevention, and removal activities. The grant program's objective is to bring together groups, public and non-profit organizations, industry, academia, commercial organizations, corporations and businesses, youth conservation corps, students, landowners, and local governments, and state and Federal agencies to implement marine debris-related projects to support NOAA's mission, “to understand and predict changes in Earth's environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs.” These diverse entities will be sought at the national, state, and local level to contribute funding, technical assistance, workforce support or other in-kind services to allow citizens to take responsibility for the improvement of important, living marine resources, their habitats and other uses of the ocean that are impacted by marine debris. Section 2. Purpose of the Guidelines These guidelines provide information for potential applicants to the NOAA Marine Debris Program's
(MDP)grant program. In regard to MDP grants that may be awarded by NOAA through competitive solicitations, the guidelines explain the grant program goals and objectives, and the implementation of the competitive grant program. In order to accomplish its comprehensive mission, the MDP anticipates using two different approaches in designing its grant program. First, the MDP will solicit recipients who will work directly on individual projects related to relevant marine debris issues. Second, the MDP will solicit diverse entities which will be funded to engage actively in establishing partnership arrangements with other organizations with the purpose of cooperatively implementing marine debris-related projects to benefit NOAA trust resources. The entities selected to establish these partnerships will assume the administrative responsibilities, such as awarding contracts and managing progress and financial reports, for making subawards to accomplish individual projects. Section 3. Definition of Terms *Act* —Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (P.L. 109-449,33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ) *Administrator* —The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. *Marine Debris* —TBD, currently being written with USCG. *MDP* —Marine Debris Program, within the NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration. *NOAA* —The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, within the U.S. Department of Commerce. *State* —Any State of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as any other territory or possession of the United States, or separate sovereign in free association with the United States. Section 4. Eligible Participants In accordance with section 3(c)(4) of the Act, any state, local or tribal government whose activities affect research or regulation of marine debris and any institution of higher education; nonprofit organization, Regional Fishery Management Councils, or commercial organization, with expertise in a field related to marine debris, is, eligible to submit a marine debris proposal under this grant program. Individuals may also apply. Federal agencies are not eligible to apply for funding through any opportunity covered by these guidelines; however, they are encouraged to work in partnership with state agencies, municipalities, and community groups who may apply. Section 5. Activities To Address Marine Debris Generally, the MDP grant program is interested in funding projects that address one or more activities specified in the Act, including: • Mapping, identification, impact assessment, removal and prevention of marine debris; • Reducing and preventing the loss of fishing gear; • Outreach and education; and • Assisting in maintaining an up-to-date Federal marine debris information clearinghouse. The MDP anticipates that proposed projects, either funded directly through NOAA or through entities selected to leverage funding through partnership arrangements with other organizations, should clearly demonstrate anticipated benefits to: • Aquatic habitats, including but not limited to, salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs, mangrove forests, or other sensitive aquatic habitats; • Species, including marine mammals, commercial and non-commercial fishery resources; endangered and threatened marine species, seabirds, or other NOAA trust resources; • Navigation safety; or • Other aspects of the marine environment. Research-focused projects should explicitly state the hypothesis or purpose of the research, the methods that will be used, and how the results may be used and analyzed to better understand or decrease the impacts or amount of marine debris in the environment. Research projects are not required to have an outreach component; however, they should include a method for sharing project results with other researchers and relevant parties. Prevention-focused projects should have a component that is able to measure the success of the activity within a target audience or debris type. Reduction-focused projects should emphasize reduction and prevention within local, state or regional plans. Removal of debris should result in benefits to the species and habitats listed in this section of these guidelines, and respond to a local, state or regional prioritization method. Projects that make debris less harmful while in the environment are also considered reduction-focused. Examples of this type of project are modifications to fishing gear so that, if lost, there is a mechanism for trapped animals to escape or a way to reduce the gear's fishing efficiency. Outreach projects should be focused enough to achieve results within a target audience; be able to measure the attitudes and behaviors of the target audience before and after the project, convey the importance of marine debris issues, and have tangible products. The Federal marine debris information clearinghouse, as of early 2008, has not yet been organized. Its status will be updated and provided in any funding opportunity announcement that lists maintaining the clearinghouse as a priority to focus project proposals. The MDP anticipates that funding opportunities will note the priorities in the selection of applications in the competitive announcements. Such priorities may note that applications would be more likely to be successful if they demonstrated a clear need for the proposed action(s), assisted the nation in gaining a better understanding of, or addressing, marine debris, and have clear results within the priorities of the applicable funding opportunity. Monitoring or performance evaluation components to address the long-term success of the project are also encouraged. As is warranted, the MDP may develop other selection priorities for inclusion in the funding opportunities. The MDP anticipates that non-research projects requesting funds predominantly for administration, salaries, and overhead may be discouraged in light of the fact that the majority of funds should be used for activities that would otherwise not be undertaken. Actual uses of the funds would depend on the type and focus of the project. Section 6. Cost-Sharing Requirement Section 3(c)(2)(A) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1952(c)(2)(A)) states Federal funds may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of a project under this Program. The competitive funding opportunities will set out how the match requirement may be met, such as through volunteer hours, and will vary depending on the entities selected for funding. Section 3(C)(2)(B) provides that a waiver of the match may be allowed if the Administrator determines the project meets the following two requirements:
(1)No reasonable means are available through which applicants can meet the matching requirement, and
(2)The probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in the matching requirement. Any applicant interested in requesting a waiver should provide a detailed justification explaining the need for the waiver including attempts to obtain sources of matching funds, how the benefit of the project outweighs the public interest in providing match, and any other extenuating circumstances preventing the availability of match. In addition, the Act provides, in section 3(c)(3)(A), that if authorized by the Administrator or the Attorney General, the non-Federal share of the cost of a project may include money or the value of any in-kind service performed under an administrative order on consent or judicial consent decree that will remove or prevent marine debris. Section 7. Funding Mechanisms The MDP grant program may use new or existing NOAA grant programs as vehicles to fund projects related to the purposes of the Act. The MDP anticipates that competitive funding opportunities will be announced entailing marine debris funding and including funding priorities for the year. Opportunities will be made public through a Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA)published in the **Federal Register** and posted on *http://www.grants.gov.* The availability of funding to be awarded through subgrants from NOAA grant recipients, including applicable selection priorities, will be announced through email, Web sites, and press releases. Section 8. NOAA Funding Sources and Dispersal Mechanisms The MDP grant program envisions funding projects through cooperative agreements and grants, as appropriate. A cooperative agreement is a funding mechanism reflecting a relationship between NOAA and a recipient whenever:
(1)The principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer funds, services or goods to the recipient for a public purpose, and
(2)substantial involvement is anticipated between NOAA and the recipient during performance of the contemplated activity. A grant is similar to a cooperative agreement, except that in the case of grants, substantial involvement between NOAA and the recipient is not anticipated during the performance of the contemplated activity. Financial assistance is the transfer of money, property, services or anything of value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation that is authorized by Federal statute. Each year, the NOAA Marine Debris Program Director will determine the proportion of Program funds that will be allocated to direct project funding through grants and to organizations that will leverage NOAA dollars through partnership arrangements. The proportion of funding to be allocated to these organizations may depend upon the amount of funds available from partnering organizations to leverage NOAA dollars and the ability of partners to help NOAA fund a broad array of projects over a wide geographic distribution. Section 9. NOAA Selection Guidelines NOAA's Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA)and accompanying Federal Funding Opportunity
(FFO)announcement will contain funding opportunity descriptions, award information, eligibility information, application and submission information, priority funding areas for the year, application review and selection criteria, award administration information, Administrative and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, agency contacts, and other information for potential applicants. In 2000, NOAA adopted five standard evaluation criteria for all its competitive grant programs, as follows: • *Importance and Applicability of Proposal* —This criterion ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, state or local activities. • *Technical/Scientific Merit* —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. • *Overall Qualifications of Applicants* —This criterion ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. • *Project Costs* —This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. • *Outreach, Education, and Community Involvement* —NOAA assesses whether the project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission. Information on how these criteria are specifically applied in the context of the NOAA Marine Debris Program will be described each year in the NOFAs and FFOs for NOAA-funded project awards and for awards to organizations that will issue subawards to fund projects related to marine debris issues. Section 10. Partnerships With Other Federal Agencies Should other Federal agencies partner with NOAA to award funding, opportunities will be published in *http://www.grants.gov* and through such other vehicles as may be appropriate for the particular agency making the solicitation announcement. Examples would be the **Federal Register** or the particular agencies' Web sites. Application requirements may vary by partner agency and will be specified in the relevant solicitations. Section 11. Environmental Compliance and Safety It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain all necessary Federal, state, and local government permits and approvals for the proposed work. Applicants are expected to design their projects so that they minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the environment. NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applications that seek NOAA funding and which are subject to NOAA control and discretion. Proposals should provide enough detail for NOAA to make a NEPA determination. Successful applications cannot be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Management Division with recommendations for funding until NOAA completes necessary NEPA documentation or determines it does not apply. Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under the description of proposed activities, applicants will be required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, such as site locations, species and habitat(s) to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use of and/or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, impacts to coral reef systems). For partnerships, where project-specific details may not be available at the time an award is made, partners must meet the same environmental compliance requirements on subsequent sub-awards. In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be required to assist NOAA in the drafting of an environmental assessment if NOAA determines an assessment is necessary and that one does not already exist for the activities proposed in the application. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The selecting official may decide, at the time of proposal review, to recommend funding a project in phases to enable an applicant to provide information needed for an environmental assessment, feasibility analysis or similar activity if a NEPA determination cannot be made for all activities in a particular application. The selecting official may also impose special award conditions that limit the use of funds for activities that have outstanding environmental compliance requirements. Special award conditions may also be imposed, for example, to ensure that grantees consider and plan for the safety of volunteers, and provide appropriate credit for NOAA and other contributors. Activities that address marine debris, particularly removal actions, can be dangerous and may require additional safety consideration. The applicant may be requested to submit safety information for activities being considered, to ensure full review and understanding. The selecting official may also impose special award conditions that limit the use of funds for activities that have outstanding safety issues. Section 12. Funding Ranges The funding opportunities, number of awards, and funding ranges to be made in future years will depend on the amount of funds appropriated to the MDP annually by Congress. Such information will be published in the NOFA and FFO for each funding opportunity. Statutory Authority Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ) Dated: March 7, 2008. William Corso, Deputy Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-5442 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG45 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)/Enforcement Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: *Meeting address* : The meeting will be held at the Starboard Galley Restaurant, 55 Water Street, Newburyport, MA; (978)462-1326. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: Agenda for Thursday, April 3, 2008 1. The VMS/Enforcement Committee will discuss the running clock; discussion points include a 24 hour limit, safety improvements, enforced with VMS, call-in, Interactive Voice Response, radioing U.S. Coast Guard, and others. 2. They will also discuss Sector monitoring and enforcement; how many landings there are (proposed and actual), percentage of vessels checked at the dock by Office of Law Enforcement/States (proposed and actual), weigh-master minimum requirements, enforcement of independent monitoring, changes required in enforcement priorities and practices, and others. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 17, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5633 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE04 New and Revised Conservation and Management Measures and Resolutions for Antarctic Marine Living Resources Under the Auspices of CCAMLR AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final notice. SUMMARY: NMFS notifies the public that the United States has accepted conservation and management measures and a resolution pertaining to fishing in Antarctic waters managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Commission or CCAMLR). The Commission adopted these measures at its twenty-sixth meeting in Hobart, Tasmania, October 22 to November 2, 2007. The measures have been agreed upon by the Member countries of CCAMLR, including the United States, in accordance with Article IX of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (the Convention). The measures include: measures previously adopted by the Commission and remaining in force; measures adopted for the 2007/2008 fishing season to restrict overall catches, research catch and bycatch of certain species of finfish, squid, krill and crabs; restrict fishing in certain areas; restrict use of certain fishing gear; specify implementation and inspection obligations supporting the Catch Documentation Scheme of Contracting Parties; and promote compliance with CCAMLR measures by non-Contracting Party vessels. The full text of all the measures adopted by CCAMLR can also be found on CCAMLR's website — *www.ccamlr.org* . DATES: This final notice is effective on March 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Gorrell, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Room 13463, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD 20910; tel: 301-713-2341; fax 301-713-1193; e-mail Robert.Gorrell@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pursuant to 50 CFR 300.111, NMFS and the U.S. Department of State
(DOS)published in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72826) the full text of the new and revised conservation and management measures adopted by CCAMLR at its 2007 meeting. NMFS did not republish those conservation and management measures that were adopted at a previous CCAMLR meeting and that did not change. NMFS invited the public to comment on these conservation measures and received two such comments. Comment 1 One commenter suggested a cessation to the harvesting of krill in all oceans by all countries. The commenter stated that krill are the foundation forage for several important food chains, including finfish, cetaceans, and ultimately humans, and that if humans collectively weaken food chain foundations, humans do harm to their long-term commercial fish harvests and especially to the continued long-term prosperity of the oceans. Response NMFS recognizes the importance of krill in the ocean's food chains and has taken action in CCAMLR to support the adoption of a precautionary approach to setting catch limits on the large concentrations of krill in the CCAMLR Convention Area. The United States has agreed to a catch limit in CCAMLR that is well below the harvestable biomass. Total international harvests in the krill fishery in the past have been at a low percentage relative to the CCAMLR catch limits. Beyond working in international fora such as CCAMLR, the United States cannot control foreign harvests of krill in all oceans by all countries. Comment 2 Another commenter, the Humane Society International
(HIS)and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), supports immediate ratification and enactment of the protection measures agreed to at last November's CCAMLR meeting. This commenter also urged the United States and other member countries to begin to identify and address the following areas that the commenter believes are in need of improvement:
(1)climate change;
(2)ice strengthening of fishing vessels;
(3)banning use of heavy gas oils in Antarctic waters;
(4)trade controls in support of containing IUU fishing;
(5)choosing an ecosystem-based management consistent framework for setting krill catch limits for small scale management units; and
(6)International Whaling Commission/CCAMLR workshop on whale research. The HIS and HSUS elaborated on their suggestions and urgings for the United States in each of these six areas. Response Beyond the comment by the HIS and HSUS that they had no objection to the measures that were published in the preliminary notice by NMFS and DOS, they raised other issues that were outside the scope of the measures and resolution adopted at the 2007 CCAMLR meeting and presented in this notice. Nonetheless, those issues (e.g., climate change, trade measures, and krill harvesting for small scale management units) are being discussed and debated by member nations to CCAMLR including the United States, and by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. Therefore, it is quite possible that these discussions could lead to conservation measures in the future that CCAMLR would adopt and that would address concerns voiced by HIS and HSUS. After considering public comment under 50 CFR 300.111, NMFS notifies the public that the United States accepts the conservation measures adopted at CCAMLR's twenty-sixth meeting, and considers the measures in effect with respect to the United States. For the full text of the measures adopted, see 72 FR 72826, December 21, 2007. NMFS provides the following summary of these conservation measures and a resolution as a courtesy to the public. Revised Measures The Commission revised the following compliance measures: licensing and inspection obligations of Contracting Parties with regard to their flag vessels operating in the Convention Area were revised to require -- adequate communication equipment and trained operators on board; sufficient immersion survival suits for all on board; adequate arrangements to handle medical emergencies; reserves of food, fresh water, fuel and spare parts for critical equipment; and an approved Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan outlining marine pollution mitigation arrangements in the event of a fuel or waste spill 1,2,3 (CM 10-02); and automated satellite-linked Vessel Monitoring Systems
(VMS)requirements to eliminate the exception for vessels participating in the krill fishery (CM 10-04). The Commission revised general fisheries matters to require: notifications of intent to participate in a fishery for krill, *Euphausia superba* , including notification of intent to participate in a fishery for krill (CM 21-03); data reporting system for *Euphausia superba* fisheries (CM 23-06); and minimization of the incidental mortality of seabirds in the course of longline fishing or longline fishing research in the Convention Area1,2,3 by giving Spanish longline system vessel operators the choice of either using traditional weights under the current two mass/spacing regimes or using steel weights under a mass spacing regime and by specifying the mass and spacing of weights (CM 25-02). The Commission revised fishery regulations for krill by: setting precautionary catch limits on *Euphausia superba* in Statistical Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3, and 48.4 so that the total combined catch in these subareas is limited to 620,000 tonnes (trigger level) in any fishing season until the Commission has defined an allocation of the total catch limit of 3.47 million tones between smaller management units (CM 51-01); and setting precautionary catch limitation on Euphausia superba in Statistical Division 58.4.2 at 2.645 million tonnes total catch, which may be subdivided into 1.448 million tonnes west of 55 degrees E. and 1.080 million tonnes east of 55 degrees E., however, until the Commission has defined an allocation of this total catch limit between smaller management units, the total catch in Division 58.4.2 is limited to 260,000 tonnes west of 55 degrees E. and 192,000 tonnes east of 55 degrees E. in any fishing season (CM 51-03). The Commission carried over from last year the precautionary catch limit on *Euphausia superba* in Statistical Division 58.4.1 of 440,000 tonnes total catch, which is subdivided into 277,000 tonnes west of 115 degrees E. and 163,000 tonnes east of 115 degrees E. CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program The Commission rescinded the Seal Islands as CCAMR Ecosystem Monitoring Program Protected Sites. Prohibitions on Directed Fishing The Commission retained the continuing prohibitions for directed fishing for finfish in Statistical Subareas 48.1 and 48.2; for *Notothenia rossii* in Statistical Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3; for *Gobionotothen gibberifrons* , *Chaenocephalus aceratus* , *Pseudochaenicthys georgianus* , *Lepidonotothen squamifrons* and *Patagonotothen guntheri* in Statistical Subareas 48.3; for *Lepidonotothen squamifrons* in Statistical Division 58.4.4; for *Dissostichus* species in Statistical Division 58.4.4 outside areas of national jurisdiction; for *Dissostichus eleginoides* in Statistical Subarea 58.6; for *Dissostichus eleginoides* in Statistical Subarea 58.7; for *Dissostichus eleginoides* in Statistical Division 58.5.1 outside areas of national jurisdiction; for *Dissostichus eleginoides* in Statistical Division 58.5.2 east of 79°20'E and outside of the EEZ to the west of 79°20'E; for *Dissostichus* species in Statistical Subarea 88.2 north of 65° S; for *Dissostichus* species in Statistical Subarea 88.3; and for *Electrona carlsbergi* in Statistical Subarea 48.3. The Commission adopted a new general measure (CM 32-09) that prohibited directed fishing for Dissostichus species in Statistical Subarea 48.5, except in accordance with specific conservation measures, during the 2007/2008 fishing season. General Fisheries Matters and Fishery Regulations The Commission adopted a new general measure (CM 31-02) for the closure of all fisheries 1,2,3 . This new conservation measure requires all vessels to remove their fishing gear from the water by the notified closure date and time, and upon receipt of such notification, no further longlines may be set within 24 hours of the notified closure date and time. All vessels should depart the closed fishery as soon as all fishing gear has been removed from the water, and if gear cannot be removed by the notified closure date then the Flag State, Secretariat, and Members must be notified. The Commission adopted a new measure 1,2,3 (CM 22-06) that restricts bottom fishing in the Convention Area south of 60°S; and to the rest of the Convention Area with the exception of subareas and divisions where an established fishery was in place in 2006/2007 with a catch limit greater than zero. The purpose is to prevent significant adverse impacts on “vulnerable marine ecosystems”
(VME)(including seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold water corals and sponge fields). Under this measure, until November 2008, bottom fishing activities shall be limited to those areas for which bottom fishing activities were approved by the Commission in the 2006/2007 fishing season. Contracting Parties whose vessels wish to engage in any bottom fishing activities, beginning 1 December 2008, must follow the procedures proscribed by the Commission to assess the impacts of bottom fishing on VMEs. The CCAMLR Scientific Committee will conduct an assessment to determine if the bottom fishing would contribute to having significant adverse impacts on VMEs and to ensure that individual bottom fishing activities are managed to prevent such impacts or are not authorized to proceed. Where evidence of a VME is encountered in the course of bottom fishing operations, Contracting Parties are to report the encounter to the Secretariat so that appropriate conservation measures can be adopted relevant to the site. The Commission agreed to adopt initial conservation measures in 2008 to be applied when evidence of a VME is encountered in the course of fishing operations. All Contracting Parties whose vessels participate in bottom fisheries must ensure that their vessels are: properly equipped; carry at least one CCAMLR-designated scientific observer; submit data pursuant to data collection plans for bottom fisheries to be developed by the Scientific Committee; and submit relevant data to CCAMLR and the Scientific Committee for review. The new bottom fishing measure also addresses data collection and sharing, including digital maps of VMEs in the Convention Area, and scientific research activities. Beginning in 2009 and biennially thereafter, the Commission agreed to examine the effectiveness of relevant conservation measures in protecting VMEs from significant adverse impacts, based upon advice from the Scientific Committee. Bycatch The Commission agreed to extend the existing bycatch limits in Statistical Division 58.5.2 into the 2007/2008 season. The Commission also agreed to extend the existing bycatch limits and move-on rules for exploratory fisheries into the 2007/2008 season. The Commission adopted a new measure (CM 33-02) that there be no directed fishing for any species other than Dissostichus eleginoides and Champsocephalus gunnari in Statistical Division 58.5.2 in the 2007/2008 fishing season. The measure for Statistical Division 58.5.2 also limited bycatch of Channichthys rhinoceratus to 150 tonnes, bycatch of Lepidonotothen squamifrons to 80 tonnes, bycatch of Macrourus spp. to 360 tonnes, and the bycatch of skates and rays to 120 tonnes. The bycatch of any other fish species and for which there is no other catch limit in force, may not exceed 50 tonnes in Statistical Division 58.5.2. The measure also set minimum distances separating fishing locations or trawl paths if specified bycatch limits of certain species were exceeded.The Commission adopted a new measure1,2,3 (CM 33-03) that applies to new and exploratory fisheries in all areas containing small-scale research units (SSRUs) in the 2007/2008 season, except where specific bycatch limits apply. The catch limits for all bycatch species are: Table 1: Bycatch Catch Limits for New and Exploratory Fisheries in 2007/2008 Statistical Subarea/ Division Region Dissostichus spp. catch limit (tonnes per region) Bycatch catch limit Skates and rays (tonnes per region) Macrourus spp. (tonnes per region) Other species (tonnes per SSRU) 48.6 North of 60°S 200 50 32 20 South of 60°S 200 50 32 20 58.4.1 Whole division 600 50 96 20 58.4.2 Whole division 780 50 124 20 58.4.3 Whole division 250 50 26 20 58.4.3b North of 60°S 150 50 80 20 88.1 Whole subarea 2,660 133 426 20 88.2 South of 60°S 547 50 88 20 Within these catch limits, the total catch of bycatch species in any SSRU or combination of SSRUs as defined in relevant conservation measures shall not exceed the following limits: skates and rays 5% of the catch limit of Dissostichus spp. or 50 tonnes whichever is greater; Macrourus spp. 16% of the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. or 20 tonnes, whichever is greater, and all other species combined 20 tonnes. Unless otherwise requested by scientific observers, vessels, where possible, should release skates and rays alive from the line by cutting snoods, and when practical removing the hooks. The measures would require a vessel to cease fishing and move on to other fishing grounds if harvests reached a certain target level. New and Exploratory Fishing The Commission adopted new general measures 1,2,3 (CM 41-01) for exploratory fisheries using trawl or longline methods, except for such fisheries where the Commission has given specific exemptions, for Dissostichus spp. in the Convention Area in the 2007/2008 season, which include:
(1)fishing in any small-scale research unit
(SSRU)must cease when the reported catch reaches the specified catch limit and that SSRU will be closed to fishing for the remainder of the season;
(2)how the precise geographic positions of a haul in trawl fisheries will be determined;
(3)how the precise geographic position of a haul/set in longline fisheries will be determined;
(4)the vessel will be deemed to be fishing in any SSRU from the beginning of the setting process until the completion of the hauling of all lines;
(5)catch and effort information for each species by SSRU must be reported using CCAMLR's Five-day Catch and Effort Reporting System;
(6)the Secretarial will notify Contracting Parties participating in these fisheries when the total catch for Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissostichus mawsoni combined in any SSRU is likely to reach the specified catch limit, and of the closure of that SSRU when that limit is reached;
(7)the total number and weight of Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissostichus mawsoni discarded must be reported;
(8)each vessel must have one scientific observer appointed in accordance with the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation, and where possible one additional scientific observer, on board throughout all fishing activities within the fishing season;
(9)a Data Collection Plan, Research Plan, and Tagging Program, together with specific provisions for each exploratory fishery must be implemented; and
(10)notification provisions for Members who are not going to participate in the fishery. Dissostichus Species The Commission set (new CM 41-02) a combined catch limit of 3,920 tonnes for the longline and pot fisheries for Dissostichus eleginoides in Statistical Subarea 48.3 in each of the fishing seasons 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. The catch limit is further subdivided:
(1)Management Area A (West Shag Rocks area): 0 tonnes;
(2)Management Area B (Shag Rocks area): 1,176 tonnes in each season; and
(3)Management Area C (South Georgia area): 2,744 tonnes in each season. The Commission also set bycatch limits on other species. The Commission authorized exploratory fisheries for Dissostichus spp. for the 2007/2008 fishing season as follows:
(1)longline fishing in Statistical Subarea 48.6 by no more than one vessel per country at any time by Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, and South Africa and the total catch for Dissostichus spp. is limited to 200 tonnes north of 60 degrees S. and 200 tonnes south of 60 degrees S. (new CM 41-04);
(2)longline fishing in Statistical Division 58.4.1 by Australia (one vessel), Japan (one vessel), Republic of Korea (five vessels), Namibia (two vessels), New Zealand (three vessels), Spain (one vessel), Ukraine (one vessel), and Uruguay (one vessel) and the total catch for Dissostichus spp. is limited to 600 tonnes of which no more than 200 tonnes may be taken in any one of the eight SSRUs (new CM 41-11);
(3)longline fishing in Statistical Division 58.4.2 by Australia (one vessel), Japan (one vessel); Republic of Korea (five vessels), Namibia (two vessels), New Zealand (two vessels), South Africa (one vessel), Spain (one vessel), Ukraine (one vessel), and Uruguay (one vessel) and the total catch for Dissostichus spp. is limited to 780 tonnes of which no more than 260 tonnes may be taken in any one of the five SSRUs (new CM 41-05);
(4)longline fishing in Statistical Division 58.4.3a (the Elan Bank) outside areas under national jurisdiction to no more than one vessel per country at any time by Uruguay and the total catch for Dissostichus spp. is limited to 250 tonnes in areas outside of national jurisdiction (new CM 41-06);
(5)longline fishing in Statistical Division 58.4.3b (the BANZARE Bank) outside areas of national jurisdiction is limited to no more than one vessel per country at any time by Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Namibia, Spain and Uruguay and the total catch for Dissostichus spp. is limited to 150 tonnes in SSRU A and 50 tonnes for the scientific research survey in SSRUs A and B (new CM 41-07);
(6)fishing for Dissostichus eleginoides with trawls, pots, or longlines in Statistical Division 58.5.2 is limited to 2,500 tonnes west of 79 degrees 20 minutes E. (new CM 41-08);
(7)longline fishing in Statistical Subarea 88.1 by Argentina (two vessels), Republic of Korea (five vessels), Namibia (one vessel), New Zealand (four vessels), Russia (two vessels), South Africa (one vessel), Spain (one vessel), United Kingdom (three vessels), and Uruguay (two vessels) and the total catch of Dissostichus spp. is limited to 2,700 tonnes of which 40 tonnes is set aside for research fishing and the remaining 2,660 tonnes is divided 313 tonnes total for SSRUs B,C, and G and 1,698 tonnes total for SSRUs H, I, and K, and 495 tonnes for SSRU J, and 154 tonnes for SSRU L (new CM 41-09); and
(8)longline fishing in Statistical Subarea 88.2 by Argentina (two vessels), New Zealand (four vessels), Russia (two vessels), South Africa (one vessel), Spain (one vessel), United Kingdom (three vessels), and Uruguay (two vessels) and the total catch of Dissostichus spp. South of 65 degrees S. is limited to 567 tonnes of which 20 tonnes is set aside for research fishing and the remaining 547 tonnes is divided 206 tonnes total for SSRUs C, D, F, and G and 341 tonnes for SSRU E (new CM 41-10). Icefish The Commission adopted area specific conservation measures for Champsocephalus gunnari for the 2007/2008 season and set the overall catch limit for the C. gunnari trawl fishery in Statistical Subarea 48.3 at 2,462 tonnes (new CM 42-01). The use of bottom trawls in the directed fishery was prohibited and fishing for C. gunnari within 12 nautical miles of the coast of South Georgia during March 1 to May 31 was prohibited. The Commission set the catch limit for the C. gunnari trawl fishery within defined areas of Division 58.5.2 for the 2007/2008 season at 220 tonnes and implemented a ten-day catch and effort reporting system for the fishery (new CM 42-02). Crab The Commission set the total allowable catch level for the pot fishery for crab in Statistical Subarea 48.3 for the 2007/2008 fishing season at 1,600 tonnes and continued to limit participation to one vessel per member country (new CM 52-01). The Commission established an experimental harvest regime for vessels participating in the crab fishery in Statistical Subarea 48.3 in the 2007/2008 fishing season (new CM 52-02). Squid The Commission set the total allowable catch limit for the exploratory jig fishery for Martialia hyadesi in Statistical Subarea 48.3 for the 2007/2008 fishing season at 2,500 tonnes and required each vessel participating in this exploratory fishery to collect data in accordance with a specified Data Collection Plan (new CM 61-01). Krill The Commission carried forward the precautionary catch limits for krill in Statistical Area 58.4.1 at 440,000 tonnes as indicated above. Resolution: The Commission adopted Resolution 26/XXVI (International Polar Year/Census of Antarctic Marine Life) urging Contracting Parties to support and where possible contribute to the International Polar Year activities in the CCAMLR Convention Area, including the Census of Antarctic Marine Life. 1 Except for waters adjacent to the Kerguelen Islands 2 Except for waters adjacent to the Crozet Islands 3 Except for waters adjacent to the Prince Edward Islands For further information, see the CCAMLR web site at *www.ccamlr.org* under Publications for the Schedule of Conservation Measures in Force (2007/2008), or contact the Commission at the CCAMLR Secretariat, P.O. Box 213, North Hobart, Tasmania 7002, Australia. Tel:
(61)3-6210-1111). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 2431 *et seq.* Dated: March 14, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5680 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 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 Defense Science Board (hereafter referred to as the Board). The Board is a discretionary federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense to provide the Department of Defense independent advice and recommendations on scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Defense. The Board is not established to advise on individual DoD procurements, but instead shall be concerned with the pressing and complex technology problems facing the Department of Defense in such areas as research, engineering, and manufacturing, and will ensure the identification of new technologies and new applications of technology in those areas to strengthen national security. No matter shall be assigned to the Board for its consideration that would require any Board Member to participate personally and substantially in the conduct of any specific procurement or place him or her in the position of acting as a “procurement official,” as that term is defined pursuant to law. The Board shall be composed of approximately 35 members and approximately six Senior Fellow members, who are eminent authorities in the fields of scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Defense. The Board members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense, and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis. Those members, who are not full-time federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. The Secretary of Defense, based upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), shall appoint the Board's Chairperson. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) shall appoint the Vice Chairperson. The Board Chairman and Vice Chairman will be appointed for two-year terms and may be reappointed for additional terms. Members may be appointed for terms ranging from one to four years. Such appointments will normally be staggered among the Board membership to ensure an orderly turnover in the Board's overall composition on a periodic basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, they shall normally serve without compensation, unless otherwise authorized by the appointing authority. The Secretary of Defense may invite other distinguished Government officers to serve as non-voting Observers of the Board, and these appointments shall not count toward the Board's total membership. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) may appoint consultants, with special expertise, to assist the Board on an ad hoc basis. All consultants shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. In addition, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) may identify chairpersons from other advisory committees to serve on the Board. These individuals will sit as observers only and shall not vote on matters before the Board. The Board shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, and other appropriate federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not Board members. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Science Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Defense Science Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Science Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Defense Science Board'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 Defense Science Board. 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, 703-601-6128. Dated: March 14, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-5634 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates AGENCY: DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee. ACTION: Notice of Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates. SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 257. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 257 is being published in the **Federal Register** to assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 256. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the **Federal Register** now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows: March 13, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN20MR08.000 EN20MR08.001 EN20MR08.002 EN20MR08.003 [FR Doc. E8-5504 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of Navy Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is deleting a system of records in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed actions will be effective without further notice on April 21, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (DNS-36), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Doris Lama at
(202)685-6545. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Navy systems 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 Department of Navy 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 proposed deletion is 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 14, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. N07240-1 System name: Commercial Invoice Payments History System (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10806). Reason: Records fall under T7801, myInvoice System (October 12, 2006, 71 FR 60121). All Navy records were destroyed after four years. [FR Doc. E8-5635 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice to delete four Systems of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is deleting four systems of records in its existing inventory of record 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 21, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (DNS-36), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Doris Lama at
(202)685-6545. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Navy systems 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 Department of the Navy proposes to delete four systems of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is 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 14, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. N04410-2 Military/Civilian Dependents Hurricane Shelter List (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10742). Reason: This information is now collected under N01754-4, Navy Family Accountability and Assessment System (NFAAS) (August 16, 2007, 72 FR 46045). N10140-1 Ration Card Records (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10812). Reason: Ration Cards are no longer issued for that area. All files have been destroyed, as our offices have been closed in that area. N10140-2 Privately-Owned Tax-free Vehicle Record Cards, Tax-free Gasoline Record Cards (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10812). Reason: Program discontinued when bases were closed in this area. All files have been destroyed. N05300-6 Armed Forces Staff College Administrative Data System (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10752). Reason: This college is now called the Joint Forces Staff College and it falls under the National Defense University. Records fall under Army systems of records notice A0351 NDU, NDU National Defense University Student Data Files. [FR Doc. E8-5636 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Information Collection Activity; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EAC announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The information collection tool is available on the EAC Web site ( *http://www.eac.gov* ). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, ATTN: Election Day Survey (or via the Internet at *http://www.electiondaysurvey@eac.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address or call Mrs. Juliet Thompson-Hodgkins, Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson, or Ms. Shelly Anderson at
(202)566-3100. The proposed data collection instrument is available on the EAC Web site ( *http://www.eac.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title and OMB Number:* 2008 Election Administration and Voting Survey; OMB Number Pending. *Needs and Uses:* This proposed information collection activity is necessary to meet requirements of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA)of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301). Section 241 of HAVA requires the EAC to study and report on election activities, practices, policies, and procedures, including methods of voter registration, methods of conducting provisional voting, poll worker recruitment and training, and such other matters as the Commission determines are appropriate. In addition, HAVA transferred to the EAC the Federal Election Commission's responsibility of biennially administering a survey on the impact of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The information the States are required to submit to the EAC for purposes of the NVRA report are found under Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 1, part 8, subchapter C). HAVA 703(a) also amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voters Act by requiring that “not later than 90 days after the date of each regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each State and unit of local government which administered the election shall (through the State, in the case of a unit of local government) submit a report to the Election Assistance Commission (established under the Help America Vote Act of 2002) on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots which were returned by such voters and cast in the election, and shall make such a report available to the general public.” In order to fulfill these requirements and to provide a complete report to Congress, the EAC is seeking information relating to the period from the Federal general election day + 1, 2006 through the November 2008 Federal general election. *Affected Public:* State government. *Number of Respondents:* 55. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Burden Per Response:* 147 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 8,085 hours. *Frequency:* Biennially. To improve and facilitate the collection and analysis of the survey data, the EAC anticipates developing and providing to the States Excel-compatible templates along with data format sheets/data maps that explain each data element being requested. The template format will allow respondents to upload and save data in a format that is readily available to the States. The completed template can then be sent directly to the EAC's contractor via email. The following categories of information are requested on a state- and county-level (or township-, independent city-, borough-level, where applicable): Voter Registration Applications (From the Period of Federal General Election Day + 1, 2006 Through Federal General Election Day, 2008)
(a)Total number of registered voters;
(b)Number of active and inactive registered voters;
(c)Number of persons who registered to vote on Election Day—only applicable to States with Election Day registration;
(d)Number of voters who registered using online registration—only applicable to States that allow online registration:
(e)Number of voter registration applications received from all sources;
(f)Number of voter registration applications that were duplicates, invalid or rejected, new, changes of name, address, party, and not categorized;
(g)Number of duplicate registration applications received from all sources;
(h)Total number of removal/confinnation notices mailed to voters and the reason for removal;
(i)Total number of voters removed from the registration list or moved to the inactive registration list. Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
(a)Total number of UOCAVA absentee ballots transmitted, returned, cast, and counted;
(b)Total number of UOCAVA absentee ballots not counted and the reason for rejection;
(c)Total number of Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots returned and cast by UOCAVA voters;
(d)Number of UOCAVA ballots transmitted as part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests;
(e)Number of UOCAVA ballots transmitted as part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests that were returned undeliverable and submitted for counting. Election Administration
(a)Total number of precincts in the state/jurisdiction;
(b)Number of polling places available for voting in the November 2008 Federal general election;
(c)Number of poll workers used for election day;
(d)Extent to which jurisdictions had enough poll workers available for the general election. Election Day Activities
(a)Total number of persons who voted in the 2008 Federal general election;
(b)The source of the participation number—poll books, ballots counted, vote history;
(c)Total number of first-time voters who registered by mail and were required to provide identification in order to vote;
(d)Number of voters who appeared on the permanent absentee voter registration list; ( e) Number of absentee ballots requested, received, counted, and not counted;
(f)Reasons for absentee ballot rejection;
(g)Number of provisional ballots cast, counted, and rejected;
(h)Reasons for provisional ballot rejection;
(i)Use of electronic and printed poll books during the 2008 Federal general election;
(j)Type and number of voting equipment used for the 2008 Federal general election;
(k)Type of process in which voting equipment was used—precinct, absentee, early vote site, accessible to disabled voters, provisional voting;
(l)Location in which votes were tallied—central location, precinct/polling place, or early vote site. 2008 Election Results
(a)Total number of votes cast—at polling places, via absentee ballot, at early vote centers, via provisional ballots. Statutory Overview (2008 Federal General Election)
(a)Information on whether the state is exempt from the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA);
(b)State definition of terms—over-vote, under-vote, blank ballot, void/spoiled ballot, provisional/challenged ballot;
(c)State definition of inactive and active voter;
(d)State provision for voter identification at registration, for in-person voting, and for mail-in or absentee voting;
(e)information on legal citation for changes to election laws or procedures enacted or adopted since the previous Federal general election;
(f)State definition of voter registration;
(g)Process used for moving voters from active to inactive lists and from inactive to active;
(h)State deadline for registration for the Federal general election;
(i)Information of whether the state is an Election Day/Same Day Registration state;
(j)Description of state voter registration database system—bottom-up or top-down;
(k)State voter removal/confirmation notices processes;
(l)Agency or department that is responsible for list maintenance;
(m)Information on whether there are electronic links between the voter registrar's office and other state agencies;
(n)State's use of National Change of Address (NCOA);
(o)State's voting eligibility requirements as they relate to convicted felons;
(p)Tabulation of votes cast at a place other than the voter's precinct;
(q)Provision for voting absentee;
(r)State tracking of the date of all ballots cast before election day;
(s)Provision for mail-in voting in place of at-the-precinct voting;
(t)Acceptance or rejection of provisional ballots of voters registered in a different precinct;
(u)State process for capturing over-votes and under-votes. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5471 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC08-11-000; FERC Form No. 11] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension March 13, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described below. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp* ) or from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director Officer, ED-34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those parties filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to Docket No. IC08-11-000. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at ( *http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp* ). To file the document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on Documents & Filing, E-Filing ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp* ), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user assistance, contact *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676 or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller, the Commission's Information Collection Officer, may be reached by telephone at
(202)502-8415, by fax at
(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the requirements of FERC Form No. 11 “Natural Gas Monthly Quarterly Statement of Monthly Data” (OMB No. 1902-0032) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 10(a) and 16 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)(15 U.S.C. 717-717w) and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
(NGPA)(15 U.S.C. 3301-3432). The NGA and NGPA authorize the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations requiring natural gas pipeline companies whose gas was transported or stored for a fee, which exceeded 50 million dekatherms in each of the three previous calendar years to submit FERC Form No. 11. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)under 18 CFR 260.3 and 385.2011. Although the submission of the form is quarterly, the information is reported on a monthly basis. This permits the Commission to follow developing trends on a pipeline's system. Gas revenues and quantities of gas by rate schedule, transition cost from upstream pipelines, and reservation charges are reported. This information is used by the Commission to assess the reasonableness of the various revenues and cost of service items claimed in rate filings. It also provides the Commission with a view of the status pipeline activities, allows revenue comparisons between pipelines, and provides the financial status of the regulated pipelines. *Action:* The Commission is requesting a one-year extension of the current expiration date, while it assesses its information needs with respect to the Form 11. There are no changes to the existing collection of data. This is a mandatory information collection requirement. *Burden Statement:* Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as: Number of respondents annually Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total annual burden hours
(1)×
(2)×
(3)70 4 3 840 Estimated total cost to respondents is $51,040. (840 hours divided by 2080 hours 1 per year times $126,384 2 equals $51,040.) The average estimated cost per respondent is $729.14. 1 Number of hours an employee works each year. 2 Average annual salary per employee. The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including:
(1)Reviewing instructions;
(2)using technology and systems for the purpose of providing the information;
(3)completing and reviewing the information; and
(4)filing the information. The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity. Comments are invited on:
(1)The accuracy of the agency's burden estimate for the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the reporting burden; and
(2)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5594 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 9988-015] Augusta Canal Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing; Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments; and Soliciting Scoping Comments March 13, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* New major License. b. *Project No.:* 9988-015. c. *Date filed:* May 31, 2007. d. *Applicant:* Augusta Canal Authority. e. *Name of Project:* King Mill Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The King Mill Project is located on the Augusta Canal about 6 miles downstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam, adjacent to the Savannah River, Richmond County, Augusta, GA. The project does not affect federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contacts:* Mr. Dayton Sherrouse, Executive Director, Augusta Canal Authority, 1450 Green Street, Suite 400, Augusta, GA 30901; Telephone
(706)823-0440, Ext. 1. i. *FERC Contact:* Sarah Florentino, Telephone
(202)502-6863, or e-mail *sarah.florentino@ferc.gov* . Additional information on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)hydroelectric projects is available on FERC's Web site: *http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp* . j. *Deadline for Filing Comments, Protests, and Motions to Intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-9988-015) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The existing King Mill Hydroelectric Project consists of:
(1)Intake works consisting of a 50-foot-long, 15-foot-high headgate and intake structure;
(2)primary and secondary steel trash racks;
(3)a 200-foot-long, 40-foot-wide, concrete-lined, open flume head race;
(4)a 435-foot-long, 30-foot-wide brick and masonry powerhouse;
(5)two vertical shaft turbine/generator units with an installed capacity of 2.25 megawatts;
(6)a 435-foot-long, 30-foot-wide, concrete-lined, open tailrace section which returns flows to the Augusta Canal, and
(7)appurtenant facilities. There is no dam or impoundment, as approximately 881 cfs of water is withdrawn from the Augusta Canal when operating at full capacity. Developed head is approximately 32 feet. The estimated generation is 14,366 MWh annually. Nearly all generated power is utilized by the Standard Textile Plant, located within the King Mill building, for textile production. No new facilities or changes in project operation are proposed. l. *Scoping Process:* The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the King Mill Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document
(SD)issued on March 13, 2008. m. *Locations of Applications:* A copy of the application and scoping document is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at: *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. o. *Competing Development Application:* Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent:* A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. r. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents:* Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, “COMPETING APPLICATION” OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. s. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5591 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-85-000] Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application March 13, 2008. Take notice that on February 29, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25314, filed an application in Docket No. CP08-85-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to construct and operate facilities located in Lincoln County, West Virginia. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. In the Appalachian Basin On-System Expansion Project, Columbia is seeking authorization to construct a new 9,470-horsepower compressor station and appurtenances. When completed, the facilities will allow Columbia to provide up to 100,000 Dth per day of additional firm transportation service, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 at
(304)357-2359 or by fax at
(304)357-3206. Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* April 3, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5592 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-88-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization March 13, 2008 Take notice that on March 7, 2008, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), Post Office Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP08-88-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)as amended, to construct, own, and operate a new receipt point to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas near Eunice, Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, 1 all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection. 1 21 FERC ¶ 62,199 (1982). Texas Eastern states that it proposes to construct, own, and operate a new receipt point on Texas Eastern's 30-inch diameter Lines Nos. 14 and 18 to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas from the Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. LNG import terminal located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, via Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline (Kinder Morgan). The taps into Texas Eastern's mainline would be located in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. This new receipt point would provide Texas Eastern with the ability to receive up to 500 MMcf of natural gas per day from Kinder Morgan into Texas Eastern's pipeline system. Texas Eastern also states that the addition of the receipt point would have no significant impact on Texas Eastern's peak day or annual deliveries and is not prohibited by Texas Eastern's FERC Gas Tariff. Texas Eastern further states that it would be reimbursed by Kinder Morgan for the estimated $2,109,396 total cost to construct and operate the proposed receipt point facilities. Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Garth Johnson, General Manager, Certificates & Reporting, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, via telephone at
(713)627-5415, or facsimile
(713)627-5947. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERC OnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free at
(866)206-3676, or, for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages intervenors to file electronically. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5593 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-66-000] Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Petal No. 3 Compressor Station Expansion and New Caverns Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues March 13, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)that will discuss the potential environmental impacts of the Petal No. 3 Compressor Station Expansion and New Caverns Project, involving construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities by Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C. (Petal) in Forrest County, Mississippi. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 14, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this proposed project and to encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project Petal proposes to expand its gas storage operations at the existing Petal Storage Facility east of Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The expansion would include construction of two new salt dome storage caverns; three new compressor units, totaling 15,000 horsepower, at the existing Petal No. 3 Compressor Station; an additional compressor station control room; about 2,500 feet of 16-inch-diameter connecting pipeline; and about 5,100 to 6,200 feet of 24-inch-diameter freshwater and brine pipelines. The proposal would increase the overall capacity of Petal's storage operations by about 19 billion cubic feet
(Bcf)of natural gas (10 Bcf working gas and 9 Bcf cushion gas). The general location of the proposed facilities is shown in appendix 1. 1 1 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices are available on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the “Additional Information” section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Petal. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the project would affect about 17.1 acres of land, including the pipeline construction rights-of-way, the cavern well sites, and access roads. The compressor station expansion would take place within the existing Petal No. 3 Compressor Station building. Following construction, about 3.2 acres of land would be permanently maintained for operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities. All construction would take place on land owned by Petal. The EA Process We 2 are preparing this EA to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impact that could result if it authorizes Petal's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below. 2 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on important environmental issues. By this Notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: • Geology and soils • Water resources and wetlands • Land use • Cultural resources • Vegetation and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species) • Air quality and noise • Reliability and safety We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, where necessary, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; interested individuals; affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberley D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; • Reference Docket No. CP08-66-000; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before April 14, 2008. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “eFiling” link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “Quick Comment” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf.* Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid email address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the Commission's process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see appendix 2) 3 . Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 3 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List As described above, we may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA for review and/or comment, please return the Environmental Mailing List Mailer (appendix 3). If you do not return the Environmental Mailing List Mailer, you will be taken off the mailing list. All individuals who provide written comments will remain on our environmental mailing list for this project. Additional Information Additional information about the project 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 excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. 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. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5596 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 77-187] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment March 13, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Commission has reviewed an application, filed January 31, 2008, requesting approval to temporarily amend article 52 of the Potter Valley Project license. The project is located on the Eel River and the East Branch Russian River in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee for the Potter Valley Project) requested approval to allow the diversion of additional water from the Eel River through the Potter Valley powerhouse for use by Potter Valley Irrigation District
(PVID)for frost protection of commercial crops. The additional water would be provided to PVID between March 15 and April 14, 2008. The licensee would restore in Lake Pillsbury all additional water diverted for frost protection, starting on April 15, 2008, resulting in a water-neutral situation. An environmental assessment (EA), prepared by Commission staff in the Office of Energy Projects, analyzed the probable environmental effects of the proposed amendment and has concluded that approval would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5595 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice March 13, 2008. The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b: Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Date and Time: March 20, 2008, 10 a.m. Place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: Agenda. Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone
(202)502-8400. For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call
(202)502-8627. This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 931th—Meeting Regular Meeting March 20, 2008, 10 a.m. Item No. Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD02-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD02-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD06-3-000 Energy Market Update. ELECTRIC E-1 OMITTED E-2 RM08-3-000 Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination. E-3 AD07-12-000 Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in Regions with Regional Transmission Organizations or Independent System Operators. E-4 RR06-1-012 North American Electric Reliability Council, North American Electric Reliability Corporation. RR07-1-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Texas Regional Entity, a division of ERCOT. RR07-2-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Midwest Reliability Organization. RR07-3-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. RR07-4-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and ReliabilityFirst Corporation. RR07-5-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and SERC Reliability Corporation. RR07-6-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. RR07-7-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating Council. RR07-8-002 Delegation Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Florida Reliability Coordinating Council. RR08-2-000 North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating Council. E-5 EL02-71-004 State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California v. British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation, Coral Power, LLC, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company, All Other Public Utility Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services to the California Energy Resources Scheduling Division of the California Department of Water Resources, and All Other Public Utility Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Power Exchange and California Independent System Operator. E-6 ER04-157-014 Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, Central Maine Power Company, NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation, New England Power Company, Northeast Utilities Service Company, The United Illuminating Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, Central Vermont Public Service Corp, Green Mountain Power Corporation. ER04-714-006 Florida Power & Light Company—New England Division. E-7 ER08-394-000 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-8 ER06-1474-002, ER06-1474-004 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-9 EL08-31-000, ER08-396-000 Westar Energy, Inc. E-10 OMITTED E-11 ER03-583-007, ER03-681-005, ER03-682-006 Entergy Services, Inc. and EWO Marketing, L.P., Entergy Services, Inc. and Energy Power, Inc. ER03-744-005 Entergy Services, Inc. and Entergy Louisiana, Inc. E-12 ER06-615-011, ER06-615-012, ER07-1257-000 California Independent System Operator Corporation. E-13 ER05-1410-006, EL05-148-006 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-14 ES08-24-000 Startrans IO, L.L.C. E-15 RM01-8-008 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for Electric Quarterly Reports; Xcel Energy Services, Inc. E-16 EL08-19-000 Public Service Electric and Gas Company. E-17 EL08-17-000 Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative and Richard Blumenthal Attorney General for the State of Connecticut v. Milford Power Company, LLC and ISO New England Inc. E-18 OMITTED E-19 EL07-95-000 Black Oak Energy, LLC v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc. E-20 OMITTED E-21 ER04-449-007, ER04-449-008, ER04-449-016 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., New York Transmission Owners. ER07-543-000 Linden VFT, LLC. E-22 ER06-278-000, ER06-278-001, ER06-278-002, ER06-278-003, ER06-278-004, ER06-278-005, ER06-278-006 The Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. E-23 EL00-95-000, EL00-95-045, EL00-95-187 San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. EL00-98-000, EL00-98-069, EL00-98-172 Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange. E-24 ER07-799-002, ER07-799-003, EL07-61-001, EL07-61-002 Norwalk Power, LLC. E-25 OMITTED E-26 ER07-539-003, ER07-539-004, ER07-540-003, ER07-540-004 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. E-27 AD08-2-000 Interconnection Queuing Practices. E-28 RR07-16-001 North American Electric Reliability Corporation. MISCELLANEOUS M-1 RM07-1-000 Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers. M-2 RM07-9-000 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines. GAS G-1 OR06-10-000 BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, Unocal Pipeline Company. G-2 OMITTED G-3 RP08-110-000 Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. G-4 RP08-127-000 Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. G-5 RP08-124-000 Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. G-6 OMITTED G-7 RP00-445-021 Alliance Pipeline L.P. G-8 RP04-42-000, RP04-42-002 Southern Natural Gas Company. G-9 OMITTED HYDRO H-1 DI07-1-001, P-2225-011 Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington. H-2 P-12751-001 Finavera Renewables Ocean Energy, Ltd. H-3 P-2524-015 Grand River Dam Authority. CERTIFICATES C-1 CP06-54-000 Broadwater Energy LLC CP06-55-000, CP06-56-000 Broadwater Pipeline LLC. C-2 CP07-207-000, RP08-190-000 Colorado Interstate Gas Company. C-3 OMITTED C-4 CP07-457-000 Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. A free webcast of this event is available through *http://www.ferc.gov* . Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *http://www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100. Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service. [FR Doc. E8-5582 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, FRL-8544-7] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Extension of Comment Period; Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire (New), EPA ICR Number 2291.01 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Extension of Comment Period. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), EPA announced on January 25, 2008, its plan to submit a proposed Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and solicited public comments on this request for a new collection on the coalbed methane extraction industry sector. In response to requests from several stakeholders, this action extends the public comment period for an additional 30 days. DATES: EPA must receive your comments on or before April 24, 2008. Submit your comments, data and information for the Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, by one of the following methods:
(1)*www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
(2)*E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771.
(3)*Mail:* Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Please include a total of 3 copies.
(4)*Hand Delivery:* Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. 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 through regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The federal 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 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 you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 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 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, and any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the index at *www.regulations.gov* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 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 Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at
(202)566-1014 or *johnston.carey@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 25, 2008 (73 *FR* 4556), EPA solicited comment on the Agency's proposed Information Collection Request
(ICR)for the coalbed methane
(CBM)sector. EPA identified the CBM sector as a candidate for a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 *FR* 76656; December 21, 2006) and also identified that it would develop an industry questionnaire to support this detailed study and would seek Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). EPA is conducting this review to determine if it would be appropriate to conduct a rulemaking to revise the effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435) to control pollutants discharged in CBM-produced water. EPA also noticed it will conduct an ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 *FR* 61343; October 30, 2007). For each industrial sector, EPA's planning process considers four factors: pollutants discharged, current and potential pollution prevention and control technology options, growth and economic affordability, and implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations to address these factors in greater detail (e.g., geographical and geologic differences in the characteristics of CBM-produced waters, environmental data, current regulatory controls, availability and affordability of treatment technology options). See final 2006 Plan (71 *FR* 76666). Response to the questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the questionnaire using its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318. The original comment deadline was March 25, 2008. Several stakeholders have requested an extension to the comment period in order to adequately understand this new information collection and provide comments ( *see* EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1074, 1075, *www.regulations.gov* ). This action extends the comment period for 30 days. Dated: March 14, 2008. Ephraim S. King, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. E8-5661 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138; FRL-8544-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1723.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0320 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 to renew an existing approved 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 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138, to
(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by email to *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 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: Ms. Lynn Sohacki, Certification and Compliance Division, Vehicle Programs Group, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; *telephone number:*
(734)214-4851; *fax number:*
(734)214-4869; *e-mail address: sohacki.lynn@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 December 14, 2007 (72 *FR* 71135), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. 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-OAR-2007-1138, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 8:30 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 Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *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 full docket ID name 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 *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 *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1723.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0320. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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:* Individuals and businesses importing on and off-road motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad vehicles, report and keep records of vehicle and engine importations, request prior approval for vehicle and engine importations, or request final admission for vehicles and engines conditionally imported into the U.S. The collection of this information is mandatory in order to ensure compliance of nonroad vehicles and engines with Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and Customs regulations at 40 CFR 89.601 *et seq.* , 90.601 *et seq.* , 91.703 *et seq.* , 92.803 *et seq.* , 94.803 *et seq.* , 1068.301 *et seq.* , and 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74 promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act Sections 203 and 208 give authority for the collection of information. This authority was extended to nonroad engines and vehicles under section 213. The information is used by program personnel to help ensure that all Federal emission requirements concerning imported motor vehicles and nonroad engines are met. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response. 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:* Individual importers and companies who import, or import and manufacture, nonroad engines and recreational vehicles. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,801. *Frequency of Response:* Upon importation. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 6,029. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $372,541, which includes $36,002 annualized capital and O&M costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a decrease of 80,107 hours in the total estimated burden. This decrease is due to a more accurate estimate of the number of import declaration forms (Form 3520-1) received. The burden for nonroad CI use (Form 3520-8) has been reduced to a placeholder, as this program is not currently in use. Dated: March 13, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-5664 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget; Comments Requested March 11, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501-3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reductions Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before April 21, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via e-mail to *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or by U.S. mail to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C216, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 at 202-418-0217. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact Leslie F. Smith via e-mail at *PRA@fcc.gov* or call 202-418-0217. To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page * http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain, *
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of the ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0774. *Title:* Universal Service Reporting, Disclosure, and Record Retention Requirements (47 CFR parts 36 and 54). *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 7,060,500 respondents; 7,631,034 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.084-125 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion, quarterly, annually, and five-year reporting requirements; recordkeeping requirements; and third party disclosure requirements. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 1,279,455 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $0.00. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impacts. *Nature of Extent of Confidentiality:* This collection does not address information of a confidential nature. *Needs and Uses:* The Telecommunication Act of 1996 (1996 Act) directed the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to reform the system of universal service so that universal service is preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition. To fulfill that mandate, on March 8, 1996, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* in CC Docket No. 96-45 to implement the congressional directives set out in section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 1996 Act. Pursuant to section 254(a)(1), the *NPRM* also referred numerous issues related to universal service to a Federal-State Joint Board for recommended decision. On November 8, 1996, the Joint Board released a Recommended Decision in which it made recommendations to assist and counsel the Commission in the creation of an effective universal service support mechanism that would ensure that the goals of affordable, quality service and access to advanced services are met by means that enhance competition. On November 18, 1996, the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau released a *Public Notice* (DA 96-1891) seeking public comment on the issues addressed and recommendations made by the Joint Board in the Recommended Decision. In a *Report and Order* issued in CC Docket No. 96-45, released on May 8, 1997, and other proceedings, the Commission adopted rules that were designed to implement the universal service provisions of section 254. On August 29, 2007, the Commission released the *Report and Order,* 2007 Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration and Oversight, WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109 and CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, FCC 07-150. In this order, the Commission took several further steps to safeguard the Universal Service Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse, including imposing document retention rules on all universal service programs and program contributors. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5408 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested March 12, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by 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 control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments May 19, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov,* Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To submit your comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*
(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review”,
(3)click the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box and
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, send an e-mail to Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0065. *Title:* Application for New or Modified Radio Station Authorization Under Part 5 of the FCC Rules—Experimental Radio Service. *Form No.:* FCC Form 442. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 200 respondents; 280 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 1,120 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $16,500. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* Applicants may request that information be withheld from public inspection pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules. The request must be justified pursuant to 47 CFR 0.457. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. Mandatory electronic filing of applications for Experimental Radio licenses, including FCC Form 442, commenced on January 1, 2004. Applicants that required an FCC license to operate a new or modified experimental radio station must file FCC Form 442, as required by 47 CFR 5.55(a)-(c) and 47 CFR 5.59 of the Commission's rules. The FCC's information technician and engineers use the data supplied by applicants in the FCC Form 442 to determine:
(1)If the applicant is eligible for an experimental license;
(2)the purpose of the experiment;
(3)compliance with the requirements of Part 5 of the Commission's rules; and
(4)if the proposed operation will cause interference to existing operations. Thus, the FCC cannot grant an experimental license without the information contained on this form. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5764 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested March 13, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to
(PRA)of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918 or send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0236. *Title:* Section 74.703, Interference. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions, State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 420 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $252,000. *Confidentiality:* No need for confidentiality required. *Privacy Impact Assessment(s):* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR Section 74.703(f) states that a licensee of a digital low power TV
(LPTV)or TV translator station operating on a channel from 52-69 is required to eliminate at its expense any condition of interference caused to the operation of or services provided by existing and future commercial or public safety wireless licensees in the 700 MHz bands. The offending digital LPTV or translator station must cease operations immediately upon notification by any primary wireless licensee, once it has been established that the digital low power TV or translator station is causing the interference. 47 CFR Section 74.703(g) states that an existing or future wireless licensee in the 700 MHz bands may notify (certified mail, return receipt requested), a digital low power TV or TV translator operating on the same channel or first adjacent channel of its intention to initiate or change wireless operations and the likelihood of interference from the low power TV or translator station within its licensed geographic service area. The notice should describe the facilities, associated service area and operations of the wireless licensee with sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the likelihood of interference. Upon receipt of such notice, the digital LPTV or TV translator licensee must cease operation within 120 days unless:
(1)It obtains the agreement of the wireless licensee to continue operations;
(2)the commencement or modification of wireless service is delayed beyond that period (in which case the period will be extended); or
(3)the Commission stays the effect of the interference notification, upon request. 47 CFR 74.703(h) requires in each instance where suspension of operation is required, the licensee shall submit a full report to the FCC in Washington, DC, after operation is resumed, containing details of the nature of the interference, the source of the interfering signals, and the remedial steps taken to eliminate the interference. (The Commission renumbered 47 CFR 74.703(f) to 47 CFR Section 74.703(h) with the R&O, In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, FCC 04-220. 47 CFR Section 74.703(g) states that an existing or future wireless licensee in the 700 MHz bands may notify (certified mail, return receipt requested), a digital low power TV or TV translator operating on the same channel or first adjacent channel of its intention to initiate or change wireless operations and the likelihood of interference from the low power TV or translator station within its licensed geographic service area. The notice should describe the facilities, associated service area and operations of the wireless licensee with sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the likelihood of interference. Upon receipt of such notice, the digital LPTV or TV translator licensee must cease operation within 120 days unless:
(1)It obtains the agreement of the wireless licensee to continue operations;
(2)the commencement or modification of wireless service is delayed beyond that period (in which case the period will be extended); or
(3)the Commission stays the effect of the interference notification, upon request. 47 CFR 74.703(h) requires in each instance where suspension of operation is required, the licensee shall submit a full report to the FCC in Washington, DC, after operation is resumed, containing details of the nature of the interference, the source of the interfering signals, and the remedial steps taken to eliminate the interference. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5770 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 14, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. Select Bancorp, Inc.* ; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Select Bank & Trust Company, both of Greenville, North Carolina. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. Cross County Bancshares, Inc.* , Wynne, Arkansas; to acquire additional voting shares of First Southern Bank, Batesville, Arkansas, for a total of up to 13.13 percent. **C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas** (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272: *1. CTB Financial Corporation* , Ruston, Louisiana; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Community Trust Bank of Texas, Dallas, Texas, a *de novo* bank. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-5630 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Vision Health: Developing an Integrative Approach to Promotion and Protection, Request for Application
(RFA)DP08-001 In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)announces the aforementioned meeting. *Time and Date:* 12:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., April 17, 2008 (Closed). *Place:* Teleconference. *Status:* The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)
(4)and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. *Matters To Be Discussed:* The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of “Vision Health: Developing an Integrative Approach to Promotion and Protection, RFA DP08-001.” *Contact Person for More Information:* Susan B. Stanton, D.D.S., Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone:
(404)639-4640. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: March 13, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-5628 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0120] Standards for Standardized Numerical Identifier, Validation, Track and Trace, and Authentication for Prescription Drugs; Request for Comments AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is seeking information and comments on issues related to standards for identification, validation, tracking and tracing, and authentication for prescription drug products. Particularly, we are requesting information and comments from drug manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, other supply chain stakeholders, foreign regulators, standards organizations, and other Federal agencies and interested parties. This request is related to FDA's implementation of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a related document entitled “Technologies for Prescription Drug Identification, Validation, Track and Trace, or Authentication; Request for Information.” DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.Regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ilisa Bernstein, Office of Policy, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3360, e-mail: *ilisa.bernstein@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On September 27, 2007, FDAAA (Public Law 3580) was signed into law. Section 913 of this legislation created section 505D of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop standards and identify and validate effective technologies for the purpose of securing the drug supply chain against counterfeit, diverted, subpotent, substandard, adulterated, misbranded, or expired drugs. Section 913 directs the Secretary to consult with specific entities to prioritize and develop standards for identification, validation, authentication and tracking and tracing of prescription drugs. Section 913 of this legislation also directs the Secretary to develop a standardized numerical identifier which, to the extent practicable, shall be harmonized with international consensus standards for such an identifier, no later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of FDAAA. This standardized numerical identifier is to be applied to a prescription drug at the point of manufacturing and repackaging (in which case the numerical identifier shall be linked to the numerical identifier applied at the point of manufacturing) at the package or pallet level, sufficient to facilitate the identification, validation, authentication, and tracking and tracing of the prescription drug. FDA has been engaged in an intense effort to address counterfeit drugs for several years. In 2004, FDA's Counterfeit Drug Task Force released a report (Task Force Report) outlining a framework for public and private sector actions that could further protect Americans from counterfeit drugs, including implementation of new track and trace technologies to meet and surpass goals of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, the Federal pedigree law. In 2006, FDA issued an update report after conducting a fact-finding effort to determine how much progress had been made toward e-pedigree and electronic track and trace. FDA found that although significant progress was made to set the stage for widespread use of e-pedigree in 2007, this goal likely would not be met. Currently, there is no widespread use of e-pedigree. Currently, e-pedigree is not in widespread use across the supply chain. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a related document entitled “Technologies for Prescription Drug Identification, Validation, Track and Trace, or Authentication; Request for Information.” This related document seeks information from technology vendors and others regarding available and emerging technologies for identification, validation, track and trace, and authentication of prescription drugs, as set forth in 505D(b)(3) of the act. With this document, as a first step in developing standards under section 505D(b) of the act, we are seeking information from drug manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, other supply chain stakeholders, foreign regulators, standards organizations, other Federal agencies, and other interested parties related to identification, validation, authentication, and tracking and tracing of prescription drugs. Consistent with the act, it is FDA's preference that such standards be the result of existing private and public sector collaborative standards processes. FDA intends to use the response to these comments to determine the state of standards development in these areas and determine how aggressively it may move forward. Recognizing the importance of uniform standards as well as the need to allow for updating over time, FDA would consider adopting such standards through a guidance process as quickly as possible. II. Request for Comments Please comment on the following questions regarding the development of standards related to section 505D of the act. A. Standard Numerical Identifier 1. Characteristics a. Should the standardized numerical identifier contain recognizable characteristics (e.g., National Drug Code number) or be random codes? b. Should there be a common header for item/product segregation based on product type: biologic, solid oral dosage form, etc.? If so, please elaborate. c. How can parties in the supply chain ensure that the numbers are unique and are not duplicated? d. How much value would there be in having the numerical identifier in more than one place for the product (e.g., package and pallet level)? e. Should the numerical identifier be machine readable, human readable, or both? f. Should the numerical identifier include the lot number and/or batch number? 2. Standards a. Do standards currently exist for a standardized numerical identifier of prescription drugs? 1. If so, please describe and comment on their application and use. 2. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholder consensus? 3. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the standard adopted by FDA. 4. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. 5. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? 6. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? b. Are standards in development or planned for standardized numerical identifiers of prescription drugs in the supply chain? If so, who is developing these standards and what is the timeline for completion? c. What are the elements, provisions, and particular considerations that should be included in a standardized numerical identifier of prescription drugs? Please be specific in your response and include examples, where possible. d. Please comment on implementation of standardized numerical identifiers of prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain. e. Please comment on any technical or information technology concerns related to a standardized numerical identifier. f. Comment on any “lessons learned” from foreign experience with standardized numerical identifiers. 3. Economic Impact a. What are the usual practices and associated costs that now exist for applying bar codes and other technologies for standardized numerical identifiers on packages and pallets? b. What are the associated costs for the application, use, and maintenance of standardized numerical identifiers? c. What are the associated costs or processes for updating the standards as needed? d. What are the benefits of using standardized numerical identifiers? 4. Harmonization With Other Countries a. What standards or unique identification systems do other countries have in place, currently under development, or planned for the future? If they are under development, please include a timeline for completion. b. Comment on any “lessons learned” from foreign experience with standardized numerical identifiers. B. Standards for Validation 1. Do standards currently exist for validation of prescription drugs? a. If so, please describe and comment on their application and use. b. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholder consensus? c. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the standard adopted by FDA. d. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. e. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? f. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? 2. Are standards in development or planned for validation of prescription drugs in the supply chain? If so, who is developing these standards and what is the timeline for completion? 3. What are the elements, provisions, and particular considerations that should be included in a validation standard for prescription drugs? Please be specific in your response and include examples, where possible. 4. Please comment on implementation of validation of prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain. 5. Please comment on any technical or information technology concerns related to validation. 6. Comment on any “lessons learned” from foreign experience with validation. C. Standards for Track and Trace 1. Do standards currently exist for track and trace of products in the supply chain, generally? a. If so, please describe and comment on their application and use. b. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholder consensus? c. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the standard adopted by FDA. d. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. e. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? f. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? g. If standards are under development or planned for the future, please include a timeline for completion. 2. Do standards currently exist for track and trace of prescription drug products in the supply chain? a. If so, please describe and comment on their application and use. b. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholders consensus? c. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the standard adopted by FDA. d. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. e. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? f. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? 3. Are standards in development for track and trace of prescription drugs in the supply chain? If so, who is developing these standards and what is the timeline for completion? 4. What are the elements, provisions, and particular considerations that should be included in a track and trace standard for prescription drugs? Please be specific in your response and include examples, where possible. 5. Please comment on implementation of track and trace for prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain, including, but not limited to, feasibility, costs, timeline, interoperability, information technology, and data storage. 6. Discuss how the data generated from track and trace should be held, where it should be held, concerns related to data security, and means for access to ensure interoperability for data sharing. What elements should be included in such a standard for data exchange, storage, and interoperability? 7. Comment on any “lessons learned” from foreign experience with track and trace. D. Standards for Authentication 1. Do standards currently exist for authentication of products in the supply chain, generally? a. If so, please describe and comment on the application and use. b. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholders consensus? c. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the standard adopted by FDA. d. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. e. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? f. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? 2. Do standards currently exist for authentication of prescription drug products in the supply chain? a. If so, please describe and comment on the application and use. b. To what extent do these standards reflect stakeholders consensus? c. Comment on whether any of these standards should be the numerical identifier standard adopted by FDA. d. If yes, why? Compare this standard with other standards that exist. e. If not, is there some aspect that could be changed to make it acceptable as the FDA standard? f. Has this standard been adopted by other countries? 3. Are standards in development for authentication of prescription drugs in the supply chain? If so, who is developing these standards and what is the timeline for completion? 4. What are the elements, provisions, and particular considerations that should be included in an authentication standard for prescription drugs? Please be as specific as possible and include examples, where possible. 5. Please comment on implementation of authentication for prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain, including, but not limited to, feasibility, costs, timeline, interoperability, information technology, and data storage. 6. Comment on any “lessons learned” from foreign experience with authentication. E. Prioritization Please comment on the priority for development and implementation of identification, validation, authentication, and tracking and tracing standards. 1. Should certain standards be developed and implemented before others? 2. Should certain standards be developed and implemented concurrently? III. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and information. Submit a single copy of electronic comments and information or two paper copies of any mailed comments and information, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments and information are to be identified with the name of the technology and the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of this notice and received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 13, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5597 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0121] Technologies for Prescription Drug Identification, Validation, Track and Trace, or Authentication; Request for Information AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice; request for information. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is requesting comments and information regarding technologies used for the identification, validation, tracking and tracing, and authentication of prescription drugs. This request is related to FDA's implementation of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a related document entitled “Standards for Standardized Numerical Identifier, Validation, Track and Trace, and Authentication for Prescription Drugs; Request for Comments.” DATES: Submit written or electronic comments and information by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments and information to *http://www.Regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ilisa Bernstein, Office of Policy (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 14C-03, Rockville, MD 20857, phone: 301-827-3360, FAX 301-594-6777, e-mail: *ilisa.bernstein@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On September 27, 2007, FDAAA (Public Law 3580) was signed into law. Section 913 of this legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop standards and identify and validate effective technologies for the purpose of securing the drug supply chain against counterfeit, diverted, subpotent, substandard, adulterated, misbranded, or expired drugs. Specifically, section 913 created section 505D(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), which directs the development of standards for the identification, validation, authentication, and tracking and tracing of prescription drugs. Section 505D(b)(3) states that the standards developed under 505D “shall address promising technologies, which may include—(A) radio-frequency identification;
(B)nanotechnology;
(C)encryption technologies; and
(D)other track and trace or authentication technologies.” FDA has previously identified counterfeit drugs as a threat to the safety of the public and the pharmaceutical supply chain. 1. In 2004, FDA's Counterfeit Drug Task Force issued a report (Task Force Report) on the threat of counterfeit medications and measures that can be taken by private and public stakeholders to make the U.S. drug supply chain more safe and secure. The 2004 Task Force Report stated, among other things, that: • Widespread use of electronic track and trace technology would help secure the integrity of the drug supply chain by providing an accurate drug “pedigree,” which is a record of the chain of custody of the product as it moves through the supply chain from manufacturer to pharmacy; • Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID)is a promising technology as a means to achieve e-pedigree; and • Widespread adoption and use of electronic track and trace technology would be feasible by 2007. 2. In 2006, the Task Force issued an update report which stated that the goal of widespread use of e-pedigree and track and trace technologies by 2007 would probably not be met. The voluntary approach taken did not provide enough incentives for the adoption and implementation of the technologies and e-pedigree. As part of the efforts listed above, we received information about various technologies for the identification, track and trace, and authentication of prescription drugs, and we met with companies to learn more about these technologies. We are aware that significant progress has been made and new technologies are emerging for the identification, track and trace, and authentication of prescription drugs. In order to address the “promising technologies” related to standards development, as described in section 505D(b)(3) of the act, we are seeking information from technology vendors and others. Rather than meet individually with companies, for efficiency and to further our understanding and knowledge, we are requesting that information be submitted to the docket number listed above. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a related document entitled “Standards for Standardized Numerical Identifier, Validation, Track and Trace, and Authentication for Prescription Drugs; Request for Comments.” Under section 505D(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the act, this related document seeks information from drug manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, other supply chain stakeholders, foreign regulators, standards organizations, and other Federal agencies and interested parties on issues related to standards for identification, validation, tracking and tracing, and authentication for prescription drug products. We are particularly interested in the following information regarding available and emerging technologies for identification, validation, track and trace, and authentication of prescription drugs: 1. What are the RFID technologies, encrypting technologies, and nanotechnologies that are relevant? What are other relevant technologies? 2. Please provide information related to: • Strengths for identification, validation, track and trace, or authentication; • Limitations for identification, validation, track and trace, or authentication; • Costs of implementation and use; • Benefits to the public health; • Feasibility for widespread use; • Utility for e-pedigree. 3. Is the technology interoperable with other technologies? If so, describe. 4. What standards are necessary for supply chain use of the specific technology? What is the status of development of such standards? II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and information. Submit a single copy of electronic comments and information or two paper copies of any mailed comments and information, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments and information are to be identified with the name of the technology and the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of this notice and received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 13, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5599 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NEI Clinical Grant Applications. *Date:* March 26, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* Houmam H. Araj, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9602, 301-451-2020, *haraj@mail.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Secondary Data Analysis Grant Applications. *Date:* March 28, 2008. *Time:* 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* Houmam H. Araj, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9602, 301-451-2020, *haraj@mail.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NEI Epidemiology Grant Applications. *Date:* April 1, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health/NEI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300,
(301)451-2020. *aes@nei.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NEI Genetics and Genomics Applications. *Date:* April 10, 2008. *Time:* 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health/NEI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300,
(301)451-2020, *aes@nei.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 13, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5568 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on
(301)443-7978. *Comments Are Invited On:*
(a)Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)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. *Proposed Project:* The Coordinating Center to Support State Incentive Grants to Build Capacity for Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion (OMB No. 0930-0271) Revision. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services has funded a Data Collection and Analysis for the Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion Grant Program. This contract is an evaluation of SAMHSA's State Incentive Grants to Build Capacity for Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion. These grants are designed to promote the implementation and evaluation of best practice approaches to reducing the use of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities. Grantees consist of 8 sites (state mental health agencies), all of which will be implementing interventions in multiple facilities (a total of 21 facilities). These include facilities serving adults and those serving children and/or adolescents, with various subgroups such as forensic and sexual offender populations. With input from multiple experts in the field of restraint and seclusion and alternatives to restraint and seclusion, the project created a common core of data collection instruments that will be used for this cross-site project. The facilities will complete three different instruments over a 3-year time period:
(1)Facility/Program Characteristics Inventory (information about type of facilities, characteristics of persons served, staffing patterns, and unit specific data);
(2)Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Interventions;
(3)Seclusion and Restraint Event Data Matrix (data about restraint and seclusion rates within facilities and units). Data will be submitted by the sites electronically via a secured Web site. The Facility/Program Characteristics Inventory and Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Intervention will be collected annually. The Seclusion and Restraint Event Data Matrix will be collected monthly. The resulting data will help to identify the:
(1)Number of programs adopting best practices involving alternative approaches to restraint and seclusion; and
(2)program's impact of reducing restraint and seclusion use and adoption of alternative practices. The estimated maximal annual response burden to collect this information is as follows: Instrument annual (hours) Number of respondents Responses/ respondent Burden/ response (hours) Maximal burden Facility/Program Characteristics Inventory 21 a 1 2 42 Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Interventions 21 b 1 8 168 Seclusion and Restraint Event Data Matrix 21 c 29 8 4,872 Total 21 5,082 a The Facility/Program Characteristics Inventory will only be collected during for the first grant year (and not during grant years 2 and 3). b For the Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Interventions, one response per respondent will be collected during grant years 1 and 2. However, two responses per respondent will be collected during grant year 3. c The Seclusion and Restraint Event Data Matrix will be collected during grant years 2 and 3. Twenty-nine responses per respondent will be collected for grant year 2. However, 18 responses per respondent will be collected during grant year 3. Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 and e-mail her a copy at *summer.king@samhsa.hhs.gov* . Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Dated: March 12, 2008. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E8-5570 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2008-0002] Notification of the Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessel Arriving to the United States, Iran AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that effective anti-terrorism measures are not in place in the ports of Iran and that it will impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving from that country. DATES: The policy announced in this notice will become effective April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: This notice will be available for inspection and copying at the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call Mr. Michael Brown, International Port Security Evaluation Division, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1081. 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: Background and Purpose Section 70110 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may impose conditions of entry on vessels requesting entry into the United States arriving from ports that are not maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures. The Coast Guard has been delegated the authority by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of this section. The Docket contains previous notices imposing or removing conditions of entry on vessels arriving from certain countries and those conditions of entry and the countries they pertain to remain in effect unless modified by this notice. The Coast Guard has determined that ports in Iran are not maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures. Inclusive to this determination is an assessment that Iran presents significant risk of introducing instruments of terror into international maritime commerce. Accordingly, effective April 3, 2008, the Coast Guard will impose the following conditions of entry on vessels that visited ports in Iran during their last five port calls. Vessels must: • Implement measures per the ship's security plan equivalent to Security Level 2 while in a port in Iran; • Ensure that each access point to the ship is guarded and that the guards have total visibility of the exterior (both landside and waterside) of the vessel while the vessel is in ports in Iran. Guards may be provided by the ship's crew, however additional crewmembers should be placed on the ship if necessary to ensure that limits on maximum hours of work are not exceeded and/or minimum hours of rest are met, or provided by outside security forces approved by the ship's master and Company Security Officer; • Attempt to execute a Declaration of Security while in port in Iran; • Log all security actions in the ship's log; • Report actions taken to the cognizant U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port prior to arrival into U.S. waters; and • Ensure that each access point to the ship is guarded by armed, private security guards and that they have total visibility of the exterior (both landside and waterside) of the vessel while in U.S. ports. The number and position of the guards has to be acceptable to the cognizant Coast Guard Captain of the Port. With this notice, the current list of countries not maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures is as follows: Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Liberia, Mauritania and Syria. Dated: March 14, 2008. Rear Admiral David Pekoske, USCG, Assistant Commandant for Operations. [FR Doc. 08-1060 Filed 3-18-08; 12:04 pm]
Connectionstraces to 59
Traces to 59 documents
U.S. Code
71 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 21 CFR 522
  • 21 CFR 522.1660
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • Pub. L. 106-279
  • Pub. L. 109-163
  • Pub. L. 110-28
  • Pub. L. 110-181
  • Pub. L. 109-13
  • Pub. L. 108-77
  • Pub. L. 108-78
  • Pub. L. 109-162
  • Pub. L. 101-649
  • Pub. L. 102-110
  • Pub. L. 103-416
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • Pub. L. 107-56
  • Pub. L. 97-271
  • Pub. L. 100-102
  • Pub. L. 110-36
  • Pub. L. 102-395
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9387
  • Pub. L. 99-514
  • 100 Stat. 2146
  • 31 CFR 356
  • 45 CFR 670
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 47 CFR 6.11(a)
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 192
  • 10 CFR 40
  • 40 CFR 192.32(b)
  • 40 CFR 61
+ 31 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Direct final rule; withdrawal
C.F.R.§ 25.33
U.S.C.§ 804
U.S.C.§ 360b
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 603
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 601
F. App'x893 F.2d 337
F. Supp.343 F. Supp. 2d 1242
F. App'x477 F.3d 1375
Cites 130 · 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.