Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

45,356 words·~206 min read·/register/2008/03/21/08-1062

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 56 Friday, March 21, 2008 Proposed Rules GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 4 CFR Part 21 Government Accountability Office, Administrative Practice and Procedure, Bid Protest Regulations, Government Contracts AGENCY: Government Accountability Office. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Government Accountability Office

(GAO)is proposing to amend its Bid Protest Regulations, promulgated in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), to implement the requirements in sec. 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, enacted on January 28, 2008, and to make certain administrative changes. Regarding sec. 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the proposed amendments to GAO's Bid Protest Regulations implement the legislation's provisions related to the bid protest process concerning Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Circular A-76, as revised on May 29, 2003. In this regard, the legislation expands the protest rights of Federal employees in an A-76 competition to grant “any one individual” who represents the majority of affected employees the status of an “interested party” to file a protest at GAO or the status of an intervenor to participate in a protest filed at GAO, to remove the current restriction limiting protests of A-76 competitions to those competitions affecting 65 or more full-time equivalent employees of a Federal agency, and to allow a protest of a decision to convert a function performed by Federal employees to private sector performance without a competition. At this time, GAO believes that these proposed revisions are the only regulatory changes necessary to implement the statutory requirements expanding the protest rights of Federal employees in an A-76 competition. Regarding administrative changes, the proposed amendments to GAO's Bid Protest Regulations are to reflect current practice and to streamline the bid protest process. GAO welcomes comments on these proposed revisions. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by e-mail at *bidprotestregs@gao.gov* or by facsimile at 202-512-9749. Due to delivery delays, submission by regular mail is discouraged. Comments may be sent by Federal Express or United Parcel Service addressed to: Ralph O. White, Assistant General Counsel, Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548. GAO intends to make all comments filed available to the public, including names and other identifying information. Information in a submission that the sender does not believe should be released should be clearly marked. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael R. Golden (Managing Associate General Counsel), Ralph O. White (Assistant General Counsel) or Jonathan L. Kang (Senior Attorney), 202-512-3315. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited GAO is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and accordingly is not required by law to seek comments before issuing a final rule. However, GAO has decided to invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments regarding the proposed revisions. Application of the Administrative Procedures Act to GAO is not to be inferred from this invitation for comments. GAO will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. GAO may change the proposed revisions based on the comments received. Background GAO determined to undertake these revisions to GAO's Bid Protest Regulations as the result of statutory changes in GAO's bid protest jurisdiction in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (enacted as Division E of the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, on December 26, 2007), and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Section 568 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, made the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA)subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation such that, as of the June 23, 2008 effective date, GAO has protest jurisdiction over TSA procurements. Section 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 expands the protest rights of Federal employees in an A-76 competition or non-competitive decision to convert a function performed by Federal employees to private sector performance. Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 amends GAO's jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. 2304c(e) and 41 U.S.C. 253j(e) to authorize GAO to hear protests of the award or proposed award of certain task and delivery orders under certain indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts. After careful consideration, GAO concluded that no change in GAO's Bid Protest Regulations is necessary in order to effectuate the provisions of sec. 568 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, with respect to TSA procurements, or to effectuate the provisions of sec. 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, with respect to task or delivery orders. The proposed revisions to GAO's Bid Protest Regulations to implement sec. 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and to make certain administrative changes are set forth below: Interested Party In accordance with sec. 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, GAO proposes to revise paragraph (a)(2) and to add new paragraphs (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) to 4 CFR 21.0, to expand the definition of an interested party to include, in any public-private competition conducted under OMB Circular A-76 regarding performance of an activity or function of a Federal agency, or any decision to convert a function performed by Federal employees to private sector performance without a competition under OMB Circular A-76, the official who submitted the agency tender in any such competition and any one individual designated as the representative of the majority of affected Federal employees, and to delete the current restrictions on protests of competitions concerning fewer than 65 full time equivalent employees of a Federal agency. Intervenor In accordance with sec. 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, GAO proposes to revise paragraph (b)(2) of 4 CFR 21.0, to expand the definition of an intervenor to include, in any public-private competition conducted under OMB Circular A-76 regarding performance of an activity or function of a Federal agency, or any decision to convert a function performed by Federal employees to private sector performance without a competition under OMB Circular A-76, any one individual designated as the representative of the majority of affected Federal employees, and to delete the current restrictions on protests of competitions concerning fewer than 65 full time equivalent employees of a Federal agency. Contracting Agency For administrative purposes, GAO proposes to delete the definition of “contracting agency” at paragraph

(d)of 4 CFR 21.0, and to replace the term “contracting agency” with the term “agency” throughout 4 CFR 21. GAO also proposes to revise paragraph

(c)of 4 CFR 21.0 to clarify that the definition of “federal agency” also applies to the general term “agency.” It is the opinion of GAO that these administrative changes will clarify and simplify GAO's Bid Protest Regulations. Filing of Documents It has been GAO's experience that bid protest documents are occasionally directed to GAO departments unrelated to GAO's bid protest process. To clarify how a document is “filed” under GAO's Bid Protest Regulations, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(g)of 4 CFR 21.0, newly redesignated as paragraph (f), to provide GAO's designated facsimile transmission number and email address for bid protests, and to advise parties to check GAO's Web site to ensure that the contact information is current. GAO also proposes to remove a provision in 4 CFR 21.0 regarding electronic filing to conform with current practice and to coordinate with changes to paragraph

(b)of 4 CFR 21.4, which are discussed below. Disclosure of Protest Materials The GAO bid protest process is covered by the GAO disclosure of materials regulations in 4 CFR part 81, subject to the restrictions of our protective order process. To ensure that the practice of the GAO bid protest process is consistent with the GAO disclosure of materials regulations and to advise that the GAO will not generally provide filed materials to the public while a protest is pending, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(g)of 4 CFR 21.1 to reflect that GAO will disclose protest materials submitted by any party after issuing a decision on the protest, in accordance with GAO's rules at 4 CFR part 81 and the protective order process. Document Requests to Agencies In cases in which the protester has filed a request for specific documents, GAO's Bid Protest Regulations currently require that the agency provide, at least 5 days prior to the filing of its report, a list of the documents or portions of documents which the agency has released to the protester or intends to produce in its report and of the documents or portions of documents requested that it intends to withhold, and the reasons for the proposed withholding. It is GAO's experience that the index of documents provided by agencies is often not sufficient to answer specific document requests and does not identify what is being withheld and why. In order to clarify what GAO requires from agencies in response to specific document requests, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(c)of 4 CFR 21.3 to require that an agency's response to a document request identify, at a minimum, whether requested documents exist, which of the documents or portions of documents the agency intends to produce, which of the documents or portions of documents the agency intends to withhold, and the basis for withholding any of the requested documents. GAO understands that this proposed revision may be perceived by agencies as an additional requirement; however, the language of the proposed revision tracks closely to the original intent of GAO in 4 CFR 21.3(c). Document Requests to Other Parties GAO's Bid Protest Regulations currently limit document requests to those made by the protester to the agency, and in certain circumstances, by the agency to the protester. Due to GAO's statutory requirement to complete bid protests within 100 days, and in the interest of fairness, there may be circumstances in which documents held by a party that are not in the possession of the agency are necessary for the swift resolution of a bid protest. To permit parties to make document requests of another party, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(d)of 4 CFR 21.3, to state that, in appropriate circumstances, one party may request that another party produce documents that are not in the agency's possession and not currently in the record. GAO does not expect these requests to arise often, and retains the discretion to determine the appropriateness of granting such requests. Additional Statements To reflect GAO practice, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(j)of 4 CFR 21.3 to clarify that parties must seek GAO's prior approval before submitting additional statements and that GAO reserves the right to disregard statements that are submitted without prior approval. Electronic Transmissions The current admonition in paragraph

(b)of 4 CFR 21.4 against the electronic transmission of documents in bid protests subject to a protective order is inconsistent with GAO's protective order admission notice, which permits the electronic transmission of documents unless a party has objected. To reconcile GAO's Bid Protest Regulations with current practice, GAO proposes to delete the last sentence of paragraph

(b)of 4 CFR 21.4 to remove the admonition against the electronic transmission of documents in bid protests subject to a protective order. Sanctions In the protest of *Network Security Technologies, Inc.* , B-290741.2, November 13, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 193, GAO gave notice that the dismissal of a protest was a potential sanction for the violation of a GAO protective order. In the protest of *PWC Logistics Services Co. KSC(c)* , B-310559, January 11, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 25, GAO employed that sanction for the first time, dismissing the protest as the direct result of the protester's counsel's violation of the GAO protective order in the protest. GAO views its authority to impose dismissal and other sanctions as inherent to its authority to issue and administer protective orders. To clearly advise that dismissal of a protest is a potential sanction for violation of a GAO protective order, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(d)of 4 CFR 21.4 to reflect that dismissal is among the sanctions that GAO will consider in response to violation of a GAO protective order, as is prohibition from participation in the remainder of a protest as an intervenor, which is another sanction GAO has used in the past to address a protective order violation. Small Business Administration Standard industrial classification codes have been replaced by the North American Industry Classification System standards. For administrative purposes, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(b)of 4 CFR 21.5 to replace the term “standard industrial classification” with the term “North American Industry Classification System.” Statutory Stays 31 U.S.C. 3553(c) and

(d)address agencies' requirements to withhold contract award or suspend contract performance when a protest is filed at GAO. Although a protest to GAO is the triggering event under these statutory authorities, the authorities provide no role for GAO in this process. GAO proposes to revise 4 CFR 21.6, to clarify that GAO has no role in administering the statutory requirements to withhold contract award or suspend contract performance. Notification to Agency GAO is required under 31 U.S.C. 3554(d) to provide notice to the parties in a protest. GAO proposes to simplify the list of agency contacts in paragraph

(a)of 4 CFR 21.12 to reflect GAO's current practice in meeting its statutory obligations. Reconsideration Certain grounds for requesting reconsideration of a protest decision, such as the repetition of arguments previously made, do not merit reconsideration by GAO. Requests for reconsideration are required to be filed within 10 days of the issuance of a protest decision. GAO can see no reason to reconsider arguments so recently considered here, and will therefore dismiss requests for reconsideration based on such arguments without development or further consideration. To clarify the requirements of a request for reconsideration and to emphasize that repetitive arguments will be summarily dismissed, GAO proposes to revise paragraph

(c)of 4 CFR 21.14, to state that a request for reconsideration must show that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the prior decision, and to state that GAO will not consider requests based on the repetition of arguments previously raised. Additionally, GAO proposes to delete language in paragraph

(c)of 4 CFR 21.14 regarding agencies' obligation to withhold award and suspend performance in the event of a request for reconsideration because, as discussed above, GAO has no role in this process. By deleting this provision, however, GAO does not express any view regarding agencies' obligations under 31 U.S.C. 3553(c) and (d). List of Subjects in 4 CFR Part 21 Administrative practice and procedure, Appeals, Bid protest regulations, Government contracts. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 4, Chapter I, Subchapter B, Part 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 21—BID PROTEST REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3551-3556. 2. In part 21, remove the words “a contracting agency” and “the contracting agency” wherever they appear and add in their place the words “an agency” or “the agency,” respectively. 3. Amend § 21.0 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), and (c); removing paragraph (d); and redesignating paragraph

(e)as paragraph (d), redesignating paragraph

(f)as paragraph (e), redesignating paragraph

(g)as paragraph

(f)and revising it, and redesignating paragraph

(h)as paragraph (g). The revisions read as follows: § 21.0 Definitions. (a)(1) * * *

(2)In a public-private competition conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 regarding performance of an activity or function of a Federal agency, or a decision to convert a function performed by Federal employees to private sector performance without a competition under OMB Circular A-76, *interested party* also means

(A)the official responsible for submitting the Federal agency tender, and

(B)any one individual, designated as an agent by a majority of the employees performing that activity or function, who represents the affected employees. (b)(1) * * *

(2)If an interested party files a protest in connection with a public-private competition conducted under OMB Circular A-76 regarding an activity or function of a Federal agency, the official responsible for submitting the Federal agency tender, or the agent representing the Federal employees as described in paragraph (a)(2)(B) of this section, or both, may also be *intervenors* .

(c)*Federal agency* or *agency* means any executive department or independent establishment in the executive branch, including any wholly owned government corporation, and any establishment in the legislative or judicial branch, except the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under his direction.

(f)A document is *filed* on a particular day when it is received by GAO by 5:30 p.m., eastern time, on that day. Protests and other documents may be filed by hand delivery, mail, commercial carrier, facsimile transmission (202-512-9749), or e-mail ( *protests@gao.gov* ). Please check GAO's Web site ( *http://www.gao.gov/legal/bidprotest.html* ) for current filing information. Hand delivery and other means of delivery may not be practicable during certain periods due, for example, to security concerns or equipment failures. The filing party bears the risk that the delivery method chosen will not result in timely receipt at GAO. 4. Amend § 21.1 by revising paragraph

(g)to read as follows: § 21.1 Filing a protest.

(g)Unless precluded by law, GAO will not withhold material submitted by a protester from any party outside the government after issuing a decision on the protest, in accordance with GAO's rules at 4 CFR part 81. If the protester believes that the protest contains information which should be withheld, a statement advising of this fact must be on the front page of the submission. This information must be identified wherever it appears, and the protester must file a redacted copy of the protest which omits the information with GAO and the agency within 1 day after the filing of its protest with GAO. 5. Amend § 21.3 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and

(j)to read as follows: § 21.3 Notice of protest, submission of agency report, and time for filing of comments on report.

(c)The contracting agency shall file a report on the protest with GAO within 30 days after the telephone notice of the protest from GAO. The report provided to the parties need not contain documents which the agency has previously furnished or otherwise made available to the parties in response to the protest. At least 5 days prior to the filing of the report, in cases in which the protester has filed a request for specific documents, the agency shall respond to the request for documents in writing. The agency's response shall, at a minimum, identify whether the requested documents exist, which of the requested documents or portions thereof the agency intends to produce, which of the requested documents or portions thereof the agency intends to withhold, and the basis for not producing any of the requested documents or portions thereof. Any objection to the scope of the agency's proposed disclosure or nondisclosure of documents must be filed with GAO and the other parties within 2 days of receipt of this list.

(d)The report shall include the contracting officer's statement of the relevant facts, including a best estimate of the contract value, a memorandum of law, and a list and a copy of all relevant documents, or portions of documents, not previously produced, including, as appropriate: the protest; the bid or proposal submitted by the protester; the bid or proposal of the firm which is being considered for award, or whose bid or proposal is being protested; all evaluation documents; the solicitation, including the specifications; the abstract of bids or offers; and any other relevant documents. In appropriate cases, a party may request that another party produce relevant documents, or portions of documents, that are not in the agency's possession.

(j)GAO may request or permit the submission of additional statements by the parties and by other parties participating in the protest as may be necessary for the fair resolution of the protest. The agency and other parties must receive GAO's approval before submitting any additional statements. GAO reserves the right to disregard material submitted without prior approval. 6. Amend § 21.4 by revising paragraphs

(b)and

(d)to read as follows: § 21.4 Protective orders.

(b)If no protective order has been issued, the agency may withhold from the parties those portions of its report that would ordinarily be subject to a protective order. GAO will review in camera all information not released to the parties.

(d)Any violation of the terms of a protective order may result in the imposition of such sanctions as GAO deems appropriate, including referral to appropriate bar associations or other disciplinary bodies, restricting the individual's practice before GAO, prohibition from participation in the remainder of the protest, or dismissal of the protest. 7. Amend § 21.5 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 21.5 Protest issues not for consideration.

(b)*Small Business Administration issues* .

(1)Small business size standards and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) standards. Challenges of established size standards or the size status of particular firms, and challenges of the selected NAICS code may be reviewed solely by the Small Business Administration. 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(6). 8. Revise § 21.6 to read as follows: § 21.6 Withholding of award and suspension of contract performance. Where a protest is filed with GAO, the contracting agency may be required to withhold award and to suspend contract performance. The requirements for the withholding of award and the suspension of contract performance are set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3553(c) and (d); GAO does not administer the requirements to stay award or suspend contract performance under CICA at 31 U.S.C. 3553(c) and (d). 9. Amend § 21.12 by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 21.12 Distribution of decisions.

(a)Unless it contains protected information, a copy of a decision shall be provided to the protester, any intervenors, and the agency involved; a copy shall also be made available to the public. A copy of a decision containing protected information shall be provided only to the agency and to individuals admitted to any protective order issued in the protest. A public version omitting the protected information shall be prepared wherever possible. 10. Amend § 21.14 by revising paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 21.14 Request for reconsideration.

(c)GAO will summarily dismiss any request for reconsideration that fails to state a valid basis for reconsideration or is untimely. To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains errors of either fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision; GAO will not consider a request for reconsideration based on repetition of arguments previously raised. Gary L. Kepplinger, General Counsel, United States Government Accountability Office. [FR Doc. E8-5621 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 54 [REG-110136-07] RIN 1545-BG48 Notice Requirements for Certain Pension Plan Amendments Significantly Reducing the Rate of Future Benefit Accrual AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations that would provide guidance relating to the application of section 4980F of the Internal Revenue Code to a plan amendment that is permitted to reduce benefits accrued before the plan amendment's applicable amendment date. These regulations would also reflect certain amendments made to section 4980F by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780). These proposed regulations would affect sponsors, administrators, participants, and beneficiaries of pension plans. This document also provides a notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by June 19, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 10 a.m. must be received by June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-110136-07), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC, 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-110136-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20224 or sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG- 110136-07). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Pamela R. Kinard, at

(202)622-6060; concerning submission of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Richard A. Hurst, *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* , or

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information referenced in this notice of proposed rulemaking were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1780, in conjunction with the Treasury Decision (TD 9052), relating to Notice of Significant Reduction in the Rate of Future Benefit Accrual, published on April 9, 2003 in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 17277). There are no proposals for substantive changes to this collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background Overview This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR parts 1 and 54 under section 4980F of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 4980F sets forth the requirements for providing notice to certain affected persons when a plan significantly reduces future benefit accruals. A notice required under section 4980F of the Code or the parallel rules in section 204(h) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is referred to as a “section 204(h) notice.” These proposed regulations would set forth timing rules for providing a section 204(h) notice for a plan amendment that is permitted to be effective before the applicable amendment date. In addition, the regulations provide guidance relating to changes made in section 4980F by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA '06). Section 411(d)(6) Protected Benefits Section 411(d)(6)(A) provides that a plan is treated as not satisfying the requirements of section 411 if the accrued benefit of a participant is decreased by an amendment of the plan. There are certain exceptions to this general rule. For example, amendments described in section 412(d)(2) (section 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before January 1, 2008) of the Code or section 4281 of ERISA. Section 204(g) of ERISA contains parallel rules to section 411(d)(6) of the Code. Notice Requirements for Significant Reduction in the Rate of Future Benefit Accruals Section 4980F imposes an excise tax when a plan administrator fails to provide timely notice of a plan amendment that provides for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual. For this purpose, the elimination or reduction of an early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy is treated as having the effect of reducing the rate of future benefit accrual. Section 4980F(e)(3) provides that, except as provided in regulations, the notice must be provided within a “reasonable time” before the effective date of the plan amendment. Section 204(h) of ERISA contains parallel rules to section 4980F of the Code. For both section 204(g) and section 204(h) of ERISA, the Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive authority over the subject matter addressed in these regulations for purposes of ERISA, as well as the Code. Pursuant to section 101(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 29 U.S.C. 1001nt, the Secretary of the Treasury generally has the authority to issue regulations under parts 2 and 3 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA, including section 204(g) and

(h)of ERISA. Thus, these proposed Treasury regulations under section 4980F of the Code would apply as well for purposes of section 204(h) of ERISA. Notice Requirements Relating to Plan Amendments Affecting Benefits for Prior Service Section 412(d)(2) of the Code (section 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before January 1, 2008) provides special rules relating to retroactive plan amendments. Rev. Proc. 94-42 (1994-1 CB 717), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ), sets forth procedures under which a plan sponsor may file notice with and obtain approval from the Secretary of the Treasury for a retroactive amendment described in section 412(d)(2) that reduces accrued benefits. Section 4 of Rev. Proc. 94-42 provides guidance relating to the written notice that must be provided to affected parties regarding the application for approval of a retroactive plan amendment to reduce accrued benefits under section 412(d)(2) (a “section 412(d)(2) written notice”). The content requirements of a section 412(d)(2) written notice include a description of the plan amendment and its effect, including the range in reduction of accrued benefits of participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees. Section 212(a) of PPA '06 added section 432 of the Code, which provides rules relating to multiemployer plans that are in endangered or critical status. Under certain circumstances, a plan may adopt a plan amendment that reduces previously accrued benefits. Section 432(e)(8)(C) requires a plan to provide notice of the plan amendment to affected parties at least 30 days before the general effective date of the reduction. The notice must include information that is sufficient for participants and beneficiaries to understand the effect of any reduction on their benefits and a description of the possible rights and remedies of plan participants and beneficiaries. Section 113(a)(1)(B) of PPA '06 added Code section 436, providing rules limiting benefits and benefit accruals for single-employer plans with certain funding shortfalls. Section 101(j) of ERISA generally requires the plan administrator to provide a written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries within 30 days after the plan becomes subject to this benefit limitation. Section 4244A of ERISA provides that a multiemployer plan in reorganization is permitted to adopt an amendment reducing or eliminating certain accrued benefits (increases adopted within the prior 5 years) attributable to employer contributions under the plan. Under section 4244A(b)(2) of ERISA, an amendment is not permitted to reduce or eliminate benefits unless notice is given to plan participants, beneficiaries, and other affected persons at least 6 months before the first day of the plan year in which the amendment reducing benefits is adopted. The notice must include certain information, including explaining the rights and remedies of participants and beneficiaries under the plan and informing the recipients that if contributions under the plan are not increased, accrued benefits under the plan for certain participants and beneficiaries will be reduced or an excise tax will be imposed on employers. Section 4245 of ERISA provides rules relating to suspension of benefits under insolvent multiemployer plans. If benefit payments under the plan exceed the resource benefit level for the plan year, the payment of benefits must be suspended to the extent necessary to reduce such payments to the greater of the resource benefit level or the level of basic benefits. Section 4245(e) of ERISA provides that certain plans in reorganization must provide notice to plan participants and beneficiaries that certain non-basic benefit payments will be suspended. Section 4281 of ERISA provides rules relating to benefits under certain multiemployer terminated plans. Section 4281(c) of ERISA provides that if the value of nonforfeitable benefits exceeds the value of the plan assets, the plan must be amended to reduce benefits in excess of nonforfeitable benefits arising from increases adopted within the prior 5 years, or the level that can be provided by plan assets, if greater. The regulations at 29 CFR 4281.32 provide that a plan sponsor must notify the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC)and plan participants and beneficiaries of a plan amendment reducing benefits pursuant to section 4281(c) of ERISA. The notice must be provided no later than the earlier of 45 days after the amendment reducing benefits is adopted or the date of the first reduced benefit payment. Paragraph

(e)of 29 CFR 4281.32 sets forth the content requirements applicable to a notice of benefit reduction. Additional Provisions of Pension Protection Act of 2006 Section 402 of PPA '06 provides special funding rules for plans maintained by an employer that is a commercial passenger airline or the principal business of which is providing catering services to a commercial passenger airline. Section 402(h)(4) of PPA '06 provides that in the case of a plan amendment adopted in order to comply with the rules in section 402 of PPA '06, any notice required under section 4980F(e) of the Code (or section 204(h) of ERISA) must be provided within 15 days of the effective date of the plan amendment. Section 402 of PPA '06 generally applies to amendments made pursuant to section 402 of PPA '06 for plan years ending after the date of enactment of PPA '06 (August 17, 2006). Section 502(c) of PPA '06 amended section 4980F(e)(1) of the Code (and section 204(h) of ERISA) to add as a recipient of a section 204(h) notice any employer that has an obligation to contribute to the plan. This new disclosure requirement is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2007. Section 1107 of PPA '06 provides that any plan amendment made pursuant to any PPA '06 change may be retroactively effective, and, except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, does not violate the anti-cutback rules of section 411(d)(6) of the Code (or section 204(g) of ERISA) if, in addition to satisfying the conditions specified in section 1107(b)(2) of PPA '06, the amendment is made on or before the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2009 (January 1, 2011, with respect to governmental plans). Explanation of Provisions PPA '06 Rules These proposed regulations would add contributing employers to the list of persons to whom a section 204(h) notice must be provided. A contributing employer is defined in the proposed regulations as an employer that has an obligation to contribute to a plan (within the meaning of section 4212(a) of ERISA). This requirement to give section 204(h) notice to contributing employers was added to reflect section 502(c)(2) of PPA '06. This requirement would only apply to amendments adopted in plan years beginning after December 31, 2007. The regulations would also add a special timing rule to reflect section 402 of PPA '06. For certain plans maintained by an employer that is a commercial passenger airline or the principal business of which is providing catering services to a commercial passenger airline, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of the amendment. 1 1 This timing rule is consistent with the Joint Committee on Taxation's Technical Explanation to section 402 of PPA '06, which states that the section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of the plan amendment. *See* Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, the “Pension Protection Act of 2006” (JCX-38-06), August 3, 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess. 87 (2006). Plan Amendments Reflecting a Change in Statutorily Mandated Minimum Present Value Rules Section 417(e)(3) provides that, in distributing the present value of an accrued benefit to a plan participant, the present value of the benefit is not permitted to be less than the present value using the applicable mortality table and the applicable interest rate, as defined in section 417(e)(3)(B) and (C), respectively. Section 302(b) of PPA '06 amended section 417(e)(3) to provide new actuarial assumptions for calculating the minimum present value of a participant's accrued benefit. Plan sponsors have asked whether a plan amendment to reflect the change in these section 417(e)(3) statutory actuarial assumptions would trigger the requirement to provide a section 204(h) notice. Revenue Ruling 2007-67 (2007-48 IRB 1047), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ), which includes guidance on plan amendments regarding the new interest rate and mortality table under section 417(e)(3), states that certain amendments to reflect the new interest rate or mortality table for an annuity starting date in 2008 or later would not violate the anti-cutback rules of section 411(d)(6). The proposed regulations would provide that a reduced single-sum distribution resulting from an amendment to a traditional defined benefit plan to substitute the prescribed actuarial assumptions under section 417(e)(3), as amended by PPA '06, for the pre-PPA '06 actuarial assumptions under section 417(e)(3) does not require a section 204(h) notice. Interaction of the Section 204(h) Notice Timing Rules With Plan Amendments That Have a Retroactive Effective Date Section 1.411(d)-3(a)(1) generally provides that a plan is not a qualified plan if a plan amendment decreases the accrued benefit of any plan participant. These rules are generally based on the applicable amendment date, which is defined in § 1.411(d)-3(g)(4) as the later of the effective date of the amendment or the date the amendment is adopted. While the general rule under § 1.411(d)-3(a)(1) prohibits plan amendments that reduce a plan participant's accrued benefit, certain exceptions exist. These exceptions include amendments permitted under sections 412(d)(2), 418D, and 418E of the Code, section 4281 of ERISA, and section 1107 of PPA '06. The proposed regulations would provide a conforming amendment to § 1.411(d)-3(a)(1) to reference the rules at section 1107 of PPA '06. The proposed regulations generally state that the effective date of an amendment that is permitted to be adopted retroactively is the date the amendment is put into effect on an operational basis, so that a section 204(h) notice must nevertheless generally be provided at least 45 days before the date the amendment is effective (15 days for multiemployer plans). The proposed regulations would add special timing rules for when a section 204(h) notice must be provided to recipients with respect to a section 204(h) amendment 2 that is permitted to reduce benefits accrued before the plan amendment's applicable amendment date. Specifically, for purposes of section 1107(b)(2)(A) of PPA '06, the proposed regulations would clarify that the date on which such a plan amendment is effective is the first day that the plan is operated as if the amendment were in effect. Thus, a section 204(h) notice must generally be provided at least 45 days (15 days for a multiemployer plan) before the amendment is effective (even though the amendment is not adopted until a later date). Except to the extent a special timing rule is set forth in these regulations, a determination of whether a section 204(h) notice is required in connection with an amendment made pursuant to section 1107 of PPA '06 should be made in accordance with the general standards set forth in § 54.4980F-1, Q&As-5, 6, 7, and 8. 2 A section 204(h) amendment is defined in Q&A-4(b) of § 54.4980F-1 of the Treasury Regulations as an amendment for which section 204(h) notice is required. The proposed regulations provide a special timing rule for section 204(h) amendments to an applicable defined benefit plan as defined in section 411(a)(13)(C)(i). The regulations provide that for any section 204(h) notice that is required to be provided in connection with an amendment to an applicable defined benefit plan within the meaning of section 411(a)(13)(C)(i) that is first effective before January 1, 2009, and that limits the amount of the distribution to the account balance as permitted under section 411(a)(13)(A), the notice will not fail to be timely if provided at least 30 days before the date the amendment is first effective. This special timing rule reflects the 30-day timing rule described in Notice 2007-6 (2007-3 IRB 272), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ), which provides transitional guidance on the requirements of sections 411(a)(13) and 411(b)(5) of the Code. 3 The proposed regulations would permit a plan amendment to an applicable defined benefit plan within the meaning of section 411(a)(13)(C)(i) to use this special timing rule through the end of 2008. Thereafter, the general 45-day timing rule would apply to such amendments. 3 Section B.4 of Notice 2007-6 provides that, in the case of a plan amendment that is permitted to reduce benefit accruals, a section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 30 days before the amendment is effective. This rule would require the notice to be provided at least 30 days before the earliest date on which the plan is operated in accordance with the amendment. Interaction of Section 204(h) Notice Requirements With Other Notice Requirements Relating to Plan Amendments As explained earlier in this preamble, under the heading “Notice Requirements Relating to Plan Amendments Affecting Benefits for Prior Service,” both the Code and ERISA include a number of notice requirements for plan amendments that are permitted to reduce or eliminate accrued benefits. These notice requirements are in addition to the notice requirements under section 4980F of the Code and section 204(h) of ERISA. To eliminate the need for a plan to provide multiple notices with substantially the same function and information to affected persons, these proposed regulations would provide that if a plan provides one of these notices in accordance with the applicable standards for such notices, the plan will be treated as having complied with the requirement to provide a section 204(h) notice with respect to a section 204(h) amendment. Under the proposed regulations, this treatment would apply to the following notices: • A notice required under Rev. Proc. 94-42 relating to retroactive plan amendments that reduce accrued benefits described in section 412(d)(2); • A notice required under section 101(j) of ERISA if an amendment is adopted to comply with the benefit limitation requirements of section 436 of the Code (section 206(g) of ERISA); • A notice required under 4244A(b) of ERISA for an amendment that reduces or eliminates accrued benefits attributable to employer contributions with respect to a multiemployer plan in reorganization; • A notice required under section 4245(e) of ERISA, relating to the effects of the insolvency status for a multiemployer plan; and • A notice required under section 4281 of ERISA and 29 CFR 4281.32 for an amendment of a multiemployer plan reducing benefits pursuant to section 4281(c) of ERISA. Timing and Content Rules for Multiemployer Plans in Endangered or Critical Status Section 432, relating to multiemployer plans that are in endangered or critical status (as defined in section 432(b)), permits a plan amendment to be adopted that reduces prior accruals under certain circumstances. With respect to any such amendment for a plan that is in critical status, section 432(e)(8)(C) requires notice of the plan amendment. Notice under section 432(e)(8)(C) must be provided at least 30 days before the general effective date of the reduction. Section 432(e)(8)(C) requires the notice to include information that is sufficient for participants and beneficiaries to understand the effect of any reduction on their benefits and a description of the possible rights and remedies of participants and beneficiaries, including contact information for the Department of Labor for further assistance and information where appropriate. As discussed in this preamble under the heading “Interaction of the Section 204(h) Timing Rules with Plan Amendments that Have a Retroactive Effective Date,” PPA '06 requires that notice be given 30 days before the general effective date for an amendment to a plan in critical status under section 432(e)(8)(C). Q&A-9(c) of § 54.4980F-1 of the Treasury Regulations provides that a section 204(h) amendment made in the case of a multiemployer plan must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of the amendment. Compliance with the 30-day timing rule of section 432(e)(8)(C) notice would thus also satisfy this 15-day timing rule. These proposed regulations also include a rule under which the content of a notice under 432(e)(8)(C) would also satisfy the content requirements for a section 204(h) notice. As a result, under these proposed regulations, any notice for a multiemployer plan in critical status that satisfies the timing and content requirements under section 432(e)(8)(C) would be treated as satisfying the timing and content requirements of a section 204(h) notice. However, in the case of an amendment to which section 432 applies for a multiemployer plan in endangered status, the normal timing and content rules for a section 204(h) notice under section 4980F would apply (so that any required section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date). Delegation of Authority to the Commissioner The proposed regulations would also delegate to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service the authority to publish revenue rulings, notices, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ) of this chapter) under section 4980F of the Code (which would also apply to section 204(h) of ERISA) that the Commissioner determines to be necessary or appropriate with respect to a section 204(h) amendment that applies with respect to benefits accrued before the applicable amendment date but that does not violate section 411(d)(6) of the Code. This delegation of authority provides the Commissioner with greater flexibility to develop special rules to address the limited circumstances in which Congress permits a plan to be amended to reduce benefits accrued before the adoption date of the plan amendment. This delegation of authority also extends to circumstances in which a section 204(h) amendment may require another notice in addition to a section 204(h) notice, regardless of whether that amendment reduces benefits accrued before the adoption date of the amendment. Often these notices must provide content requirements similar to a section 204(h) notice. This delegation would permit the Commissioner to treat plans providing these other notices as having complied with the requirement to provide a section 204(h) notice, thus eliminating unnecessary overlap in the administration of plans. Proposed Effective Dates These regulations are generally proposed to be applicable to section 204(h) amendments that are effective on or after January 1, 2008. However, for any section 204(h) amendment that is adopted after the effective date of the amendment, the clarification of the effective date of the amendment in these proposed regulations is applicable to those amendments on or after July 1, 2008. In addition, for any amendment to which the proposed regulations would otherwise apply, no inference is intended as to when a section 204(h) notice must be provided if the amendment is effective before July 1, 2008. As described in this preamble under the heading “Interaction of the Section 204(h) Notice Timing Rules with Plan Amendments that Have a Retroactive Effective Date,” with respect to any section 204(h) amendment to a lump sum-based benefit formula (or any other amendment adopted pursuant to section 701 of PPA '06), the special rules under the proposed regulations relating to an amendment that applies with respect to benefits accrued before the applicable amendment date apply to amendments adopted after December 21, 2006 (the date on which Notice 2007-6 was published). However, the special 30-day timing rule for providing a section 204(h) notice applies to such amendments effective on or after December 21, 2006, and not later than December 31, 2008. With respect to the rule relating to adding contributing employers to the list of section 204(h) recipients, the effective date is proposed to apply to section 204(h) amendments adopted in plan years beginning after December 31, 2007. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking 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 this regulation. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in this regulation would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this regulation only provides guidance on how to satisfy existing collection of information requirements. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and IRS request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for July 10, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by June 19, 2008 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) by June 20, 2008. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Pamela R. Kinard, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 26 CFR Part 54 Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 54 are proposed to be 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 1.411(d)-3 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: The revision reads as follows: § 1.411(d)-3 Section 411(d)(6) protected benefits.

(a)*Protection of accrued benefits* —(1) *General rule.* Under section 411(d)(6)(A), a plan is not a qualified plan (and a trust forming a part of such plan is not a qualified trust) if a plan amendment decreases the accrued benefit of any plan participant, except as provided in section 412(d)(2) (section 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before January 1, 2008), section 4281 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as amended (ERISA), or other applicable law (see, for example, sections 418D and 418E of the Internal Revenue Code, and section 1107 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780, 1063)). * * * PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES **Par. 3.** The authority citation for part 54 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 54.4980F-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4980F and section 1107 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-780 (120 Stat. 780). * * * **Par. 4.** Section 54.4980F-1 is amended by: 1. Revising the second sentence of A-1(a). 2. Redesignating A-8(d) as A-8(e) and adding new A-8(d). 3. Revising the first sentence of A-9(a), A-9(b), and A-9(c), and revising A-9(d)(1). 4. Adding A-9(f) and A-9(g). 5. Revising the first sentence of A-10(a). 6. Revising A-11(a)(1) and adding A-11(a)(7). 7. Adding A-18(a)(4) and A-18(a)(5). 8. Revising A-18(b)(1) and adding (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(3)(iii). These additions and revisions read as follows: § 54.4980F-1 Notice requirements for certain pension plan amendments significantly reducing the rate of future benefit accrual. A-1.

(a)*Requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 4980F(e) and ERISA section 204(h).* * * * The notice is required to be provided to plan participants and alternate payees who are applicable individuals (as defined in Q&A-10 of this section), to certain employee organizations, and to contributing employers (as described in Q&A-10 of this section). A-8. * * *

(d)*Plan amendments reflecting a change in statutorily mandated minimum present value rules.* If a defined benefit plan offers a distribution to which the minimum present value rules of section 417(e)(3) apply (other than a payment to which section 411(a)(13)(A) applies), and the plan is amended to reflect the changes to the applicable interest and mortality assumptions in section 417(e)(3) made by PPA '06 (and no change is made in the dates on which the payment will be made), no section 204(h) notice is required to be provided. A-9.

(a)*45-day general rule.* Except as otherwise provided in this Q&A-9, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 45 days before the effective date of any section 204(h) amendment. * * *

(b)*15-day rule for small plans.* Except for amendments described in paragraphs (d)(2) and

(g)of this Q&A-9, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of any section 204(h) amendment in the case of a small plan. * * *

(c)*15-day rule for multiemployer plans.* Except for amendments described in paragraphs (d)(2) and

(g)of this Q&A-9, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of any section 204(h) amendment in the case of a multiemployer plan. * * *

(d)*Special timing rule for business transactions* —(1) *15-day rule for section 204(h) amendment in connection with an acquisition or disposition.* Except for amendments described in paragraphs (d)(2) and

(g)of this Q&A-9, if a section 204(h) amendment is adopted in connection with an acquisition or disposition, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of the section 204(h) amendment.

(f)*Special timing rule for certain plans maintained by commercial airlines.* See section 402 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-780 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA '06) for a special rule that applies to certain plans maintained by an employer that is a commercial passenger airline or the principal business of which is providing catering services to a commercial passenger airline. Under this special rule, section 204(h) notice must be provided at least 15 days before the effective date of the amendment.

(g)*Special timing rules relating to certain section 411(d)(6) plan amendments—*

(1)*Plan amendments permitted to reduce prior accruals.* This paragraph

(g)generally provides special rules with respect to a plan amendment that would not violate section 411(d)(6) even if the amendment applies with respect to benefits accrued before the applicable amendment date. Thus, for example, this paragraph

(g)applies to amendments that are permitted to be effective retroactively under section 412(d)(2) (section 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before January 1, 2008), 418D, or 418E of the Code, section 4281 of ERISA, or section 1107 of PPA '06. See, generally, § 1.411(d)-3(a)(1).

(2)*General timing rule for amendments to which this paragraph

(g)applies.* For an amendment to which this paragraph

(g)applies, the amendment is effective on the first date on which the plan is operated as if the amendment were in effect. Thus, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (g), a section 204(h) notice for an amendment to which paragraph

(a)of this section applies that is adopted after the effective date of the amendment must be provided, with respect to any applicable individual, at least 45 days before (or such other date as may apply under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or

(f)of this Q&A-9) the date the amendment is effective.

(3)*Special rules for section 204(h) notices provided in connection with other disclosure requirements—*

(i)*In general.* Notwithstanding the requirements in this Q&A-9 and Q&A-11 of this section, if a plan provides one of the notices in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this Q&A-9 in accordance with the applicable timing and content rules for such notice, the plan is treated as providing a section 204(h) notice with respect to a section 204(h) amendment and is treated as satisfying the timing rules of this Q&A-9 and the content rules of paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and

(6)of Q&A-11 of this section.

(ii)*Notice requirements.* The notices in this paragraph (g)(3)(ii) are—

(A)A notice required under any revenue ruling, notice, or other guidance published under the authority of the Commissioner in the Internal Revenue Bulletin to affected parties in connection with a retroactive plan amendment described in section 412(d)(2) (section 412(c)(8) for plan years beginning before January 1, 2008);

(B)A notice required under section 101(j) of ERISA if an amendment is adopted to comply with the benefit limitation requirements of section 206(g) of ERISA (section 436 of the Code);

(C)A notice required under 4244A(b) of ERISA for an amendment that reduces or eliminates accrued benefits attributable to employer contributions with respect to a multiemployer plan in reorganization;

(D)A notice required under section 4245(e) of ERISA, relating to the effects of the insolvency status for a multiemployer plan; and

(E)A notice required under section 4281 of ERISA for an amendment of a multiemployer plan reducing benefits pursuant to section 4281(c) of ERISA.

(4)*Delegation of authority to Commissioner.* The Commissioner may provide special rules under section 4980F, in revenue rulings, notices, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ) of this chapter), that the Commissioner determines to be necessary or appropriate with respect to a section 204(h) amendment—

(i)That applies to benefits accrued before the applicable amendment date but that does not violate section 411(d)(6) or

(ii)For which there is a required notice with timing and content requirements similar to a section 204(h) notice. A-10.

(a)*In general.* Section 204(h) notice must be provided to each applicable individual, to each employee organization representing participants who are applicable individuals, and, for plan years beginning after December 31, 2007, to each employer that has an obligation to contribute (within the meaning of section 4212(a) of ERISA) to the plan. * * * A-11.

(a)*Explanation of notice requirement* —(1) *In general.* Section 204(h) notice must include sufficient information to allow applicable individuals to understand the effect of the plan amendment. In order to satisfy this rule, a plan administrator providing section 204(h) notice must generally satisfy paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (4), (5), and

(6)of this Q&A-11. See paragraph (a)(7) of this Q&A-11 for a special rule relating to section 204(h) notices provided in connection with a notice required under section 432(e)(8)(C). See paragraph (g)(3) of Q&A-9 of this section for special rules relating to section 204(h) notices provided in connection with certain other written notices. See also paragraph (g)(4) of Q&A-9 of this section for a delegation of authority to the Commissioner to provide special rules.

(7)*Information in section 204(h) notice provided in connection with a notice required under section 432(e)(8)(C).* The information required in a notice under section 432(e)(8)(C) is treated as satisfying the content requirements of paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and

(6)of this Q&A-11 for a section 204(h) notice. A-18.

(a)* * *

(4)*Special effective date for certain section 204(h) amendments made by plans of commercial airlines.* Section 402 of PPA '06 applies to section 204(h) amendments adopted in plan years ending after August 17, 2006.

(5)*Special effective date for rule relating to contributing employers.* Section 502 of PPA '06, which amended section 4980F(e)(1) of the Code, applies to section 204(h) amendments adopted in plan years beginning after December 31, 2007.

(b)*Regulatory effective date* —(1) *General effective date.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), section 4980F and section 204(h) of ERISA, as amended by EGTRRA, apply to plan amendments taking effect on or after June 7, 2001 (statutory effective date), which is the date of enactment of EGTRRA.

(3)*Effective dates for Q&A-9(g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(4) and Q&A-11(a)(7)* —(i) *General effective date.* Except as provided in Q&A-18(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section, the rules in Q&A-9(g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(4) and Q&A-11(a)(7) of this section apply to amendments that are effective on or after January 1, 2008.

(ii)*Effective date for Q&A-9(g)(2).* Except as provided in Q&A-18(b)(3)(iii) of this section, the rules in Q&A-9(g)(2) of this section apply to amendments that are effective on or after July 1, 2008.

(iii)*Special rules for section 204(h) amendments to applicable defined benefit plan.* Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of this Q&A-18, with respect to any section 204(h) notice provided in connection with a section 204(h) amendment to an applicable defined benefit plan within the meaning of section 411(a)(13)(C)(i) to limit distributions as permitted under section 411(a)(13)(A) for distributions made after August 17, 2006, that is made pursuant to section 701 of PPA '06, the special rules in paragraphs (g)(1) and

(2)of Q&A-9 of this section apply to amendments made effective after December 21, 2006. For such an amendment that is effective not later than December 31, 2008, section 204(h) notice does not fail to be timely if the notice is provided at least 30 days, rather than 45 days, before the date that the amendment is first effective. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-5625 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-143468-07] RIN 1545-BH23 Classification of Certain Foreign Entities AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS and the Treasury Department are issuing temporary and final regulations relating to certain business entities included on the list of foreign business entities that are always classified as corporations for Federal tax purposes. The regulations are needed to make the Federal tax classification of Bulgarian public limited liability companies consistent with the Federal tax classification of public limited liability companies organized in other countries of the European Economic Area. They will affect persons owning an interest in a Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo on or after January 1, 2007. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-143468-07), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-143468-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-143468-07). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, S. James Hawes,

(202)622-3860; concerning submissions of comments, Kelly Banks,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in this issue of the **Federal Register** amend and revise 26 CFR part 301 relating to section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. The temporary regulations add certain business entities to the list of foreign business entities that are always classified as corporations for Federal tax purposes. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains both the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation. Because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) does not apply, either. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact. Comments and Request for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Proposed Effective Date The regulations proposed in this document would be applicable for entities existing on or after March 21, 2008. Drafting Information The principal author of these proposed regulations is S. James Hawes of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International); however, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.7701-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(8)(vi) and (e)(7) to read as follows: § 301.7701-2 Business entities; definitions.

(b)* * *

(8)* * *

(vi)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 301.7701-2(b)(8)(vi) is the same as the text of § 301.7701-2T(b)(8)(vi) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .]

(e)* * *

(7)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 301.7701-2(e)(7) is the same as the text of § 301.7701-2T(e)(7) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-5687 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0154] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Severn River, College Creek, Weems Creek and Carr Creek, Annapolis, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for the “William I. Koch International Sea Scout Cup”, a sailboat regatta to be held on the waters of the Severn River, Annapolis, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Severn River adjacent to the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland during the sailboat regatta. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0154 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

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

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

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

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Inspections and Compliance Branch, at

(757)398-6204. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0154), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0154) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, Room 416 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On July 13 through July 19, 2008, the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD will host the “William I. Koch International Sea Scout Cup”, sailboat regatta on the waters of the Severn River. This youth sailing regatta is comprised of young men and women between the ages of 14 and 21 who are actively registered in the Sea Scout program. The five-day event will be held at the Naval Academy's Sailing Center. Teams from the United States and 20 countries will test their seamanship skills as they sail 14′ sloop rigged boats. The event will consist of approximately 80 fourteen-foot sailboats racing about several marked courses on the Severn River. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, support vessels, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters on the Severn River adjacent to the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. This rule would be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008, and would restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the sail boat regatta. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical would allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. If the event's daily activities should conclude prior to 7:30 p.m., enforcement of this proposed regulation may be terminated for that day at the discretion of the Patrol Commander. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Severn River adjacent to U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland during the event, the effects of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcast, area newspapers and radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Severn River during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Severn River adjacent to the U.S. Naval Academy waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Information regarding the International Sea Scout Cup will be disseminated by local community news papers and radio stations. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Coast Guard at the number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add temporary § 100.35-T05-017 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-017 Severn River, Annapolis, MD

(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′38.9″ N, longitude 076°31′05.2″ W thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°00′54.7″ N, longitude 076°30′44.8″ W, this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from the Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N, longitude 076°28′49″ W thence southeast to a point 700 yards east of Chinks Point, MD at latitude 38°58′1.9″ N, longitude 076°28′1.7″ W thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude 38°58′29″ N, longitude 076°27′16″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b)*Definitions.*

(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.

(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(c)*Special local regulations.*

(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2)The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of the regulated area shall:

(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

(3)Any spectator vessel may anchor outside of the regulated area specified in paragraph

(a)of this section but may not block a navigable channel.

(d)*Enforcement period.*

(1)This section will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008 and if the event's daily activities should conclude prior to 6 p.m., enforcement of this proposed regulation may be terminated for that day at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

(2)The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates and times. Dated: March 10, 2008. Fred M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-5776 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0879; FRL-8533-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). On September 7, 2006, Ohio requested approval of revisions to its open burning standards. The revisions were made to clarify the open burning rules. Ohio added requirements for specific types of burning that were previously not addressed. The state also added or refined some of the definitions and slightly changed some of the existing rules. The revisions were made to increase clarity of Ohio's open burning rules. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0879, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6524, *rau.matthew@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 15, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-5668 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070717341-8250-01] RIN 0648-AV41 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes management measures for the 2008 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources. DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AV41, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail and hand delivery: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Recreational Measures.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. Send the fax to the attention of the Sustainable Fisheries Division. Include “Comments on 2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Recreational Measures” prominently on the fax. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst,

(978)281-9104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder ( *Paralichthys dentatus* ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina

(NC)northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup ( *Stenotomus chrysops* ) and black sea bass ( *Centropristis striata* ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. The Council prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass). General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. States manage summer flounder within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish. The FMP established Monitoring Committees (Committees) for the three fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission; the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Councils; and NMFS. The FMP and its implementing regulations require the Committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually and to recommend management measures necessary to achieve the recreational harvest limits established for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. The FMP limits these measures to minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season. The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) then consider the Committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council and the Commission, respectively. The Council then reviews the recommendations of the Demersal Species Committee, makes its own recommendations, and forwards them to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the targets specified for each species in the FMP. Quota specifications for the 2008 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries were published on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74197). Based on these specifications, the 2008 coastwide recreational harvest limits are 6,215,800 lb (2,819 mt) for summer flounder, 1,830,920 lb (830 mt) for scup, and 2,108,447 lb (956 mt) for black sea bass. The specification rules did not establish recreational measures, since final recreational catch data for 2007 were not available when the Council made its recreational harvest limit recommendation to NMFS. All minimum fish sizes discussed hereafter are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person. Summer Flounder Recreational landings for 2007 were estimated to have been 9.30 million lb (4,218 mt). This exceeded, by approximately 38 percent, the 2007 recreational harvest limit of 6.69 million lb (3,034 mt). All states except MA and VA are projected to have exceeded their state harvest limits established under the conservation equivalency system utilized to manage the 2007 recreational summer flounder fishery. The magnitude of the overages ranged from a low of 16 percent for CT to a high of 49 percent for MD. The 2008 coastwide harvest limit is 6,215,800 lb (2,819 mt), a 9.2-percent decrease from the 2007 harvest limit of 6,689,004 lb (3,034 mt). Given the 2007 overages and reduction in available harvest for 2008, landings must be reduced by 33.2-percent coastwide from the 2007 levels to ensure that the 2008 harvest limit is not exceeded. The Council is recommending conservation equivalency, described as follows, that would require individual states to reduce summer flounder landings (measured in number of fish) to achieve the necessary recreational harvest reductions for 2008. NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP (Framework Adjustment 2) on July 29, 2001 (66 FR 36208), which established a process that makes conservation equivalency an option for the summer flounder recreational fishery. Conservation equivalency allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit, if implemented by all of the states. The Council and Board recommend annually that either state-specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or coastwide management measures be implemented by all states to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Even when the Council and Board recommend conservation equivalency, the Council must specify a set of coastwide measures that would apply if conservation equivalency is not approved. If conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. In such a situation, federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ would then be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures. In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee (Technical Committee), or that submits measures that are determined not to achieve the required level of reduction for that state. The precautionary default measures are defined as the set of measures that would achieve at least the highest percent reduction for any state on a coastwide basis. In December 2007, the Council and Board voted to recommend conservation equivalency to achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limit. The Commission's conservation equivalency guidelines require the states to determine and implement appropriate state-specific management measures (i.e., possession limits, fish size limits, and fishing seasons) to achieve state-specific harvest limits. States' may also form voluntary regions wherein the member states' measures must achieve the overall reduction required for the region in question. For 2008, at the request of NMFS, and under the direction of the Council and Commission, the Technical Committee developed additional guidance for states to utilize to improve the effectiveness of conservation equivalency in 2008. The Technical Committee assessed the performance, as measured by the effectiveness of state measures in constraining landings to the annual recreational harvest limits, for each state's conservation equivalency measures during the period of 2001 through 2007. Based on the average individual state overage during the 2001-2007 time frame, the Technical Committee crafted a performance-based adjustment to be applied to further increase the percent reduction some states must achieve in 2008. States assigned this additional reduction had an average net overage relative to their respective harvest targets for the 2001-2007 time frame. Under the conservation equivalent approach, each state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state, so long as these measures are determined by the Commission to provide equivalent conservation as would Federal coastwide measures. For 2008, the Commission is requiring that states also reduce landings by an additional performance-based adjustment, as developed by the Technical Committee, to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit in an effort to ensure that recreational overages will not occur in 2008. According to the conservation equivalency procedures established in Framework Adjustment 2, each state except MA would be required to reduce 2008 landings by the percentages shown in Table 1. In addition, the states of RI, CT, NY, NJ, and VA are required by the Commission to further reduce landings by the Technical Committee's performance-based adjustment factor shown in Table 1, resulting in a final higher total level of reduction for 2008. MA may submit more liberal management measures, provided that they are sufficient to ensure its 2008 state harvest limit is not exceeded. ME and NH have no recreational summer flounder harvest limit and are not required to submit management measures to the Commission. Table 1. 2008 Conservation Equivalency State-Specific Harvest Targets (thousands of fish), Initial Percent Reductions, Commission Required Performance-Based Adjustments, and Final Percent Reductions. State 2008 Target (X '000 fish) Initial Percent Reduction Required under Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP Commission Performance Based Reduction Factor Final Percent Reduction Required by Commission MA 113 0 0 0 RI 116 47.5 7.8 51.6 CT 77 28.7 1.9 30.1 NY 361 45.9 33.6 64.0 NJ 801 39.2 4.3 41.8 DE 64 41.8 0.0 41.8 MD 61 56.7 0.0 56.7 VA 342 13.9 8.9 21.5 NC 115 34.3 0.0 34.2 The Board required that each state submit its conservation equivalency proposals to the Commission by late January 2008. The Technical Committee then evaluated the proposals and advised the Board of each proposal's consistency with respect to achieving the coastwide recreational harvest limit. The Commission invited public participation in its review process by allowing public comment on the state proposals at the Technical Committee meeting held on January 29, 2008. The Board met on February 7, 2008, and approved a range of management proposals for each state designed to attain conservation equivalency. Once the states select and submit their final summer flounder management measures to the Commission, the Commission will notify NMFS as to which individual state proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS retains the final authority either to approve or to disapprove using conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures and will publish its determination as a final rule in the **Federal Register** to establish the 2008 recreational measures for these fisheries. States that do not submit conservation equivalency proposals, or whose proposals are disapproved by the Commission, will be required by the Commission to adopt the precautionary default measures. In the case of states that are initially assigned precautionary default measures, but subsequently receive Commission approval of revised state measures, NMFS will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing a waiver of the permit condition at § 648.4(b). The suite of state proposals for 2008, consistent with the Technical Committee's performance-based adjustment procedures, have initially been approved by the Commission. Therefore, a state would only be required to implement precautionary default measures if the measures submitted for final Commission approval are different than those preliminarily approved by the Commission or for failing to finalize conservation equivalent measures for 2008. The precautionary default measures initially recommended by the Council and Board during their joint December 2008 meeting were for a 20.0-inch (50.80-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of two fish, and an open season of May 23 through September 1, 2008. Since the December 2007, the Technical Committee developed the previously discussed performance-based adjustment in response to a joint Council and Commission motion designed to improve the performance of conservation equivalency. This resulted in the precautionary default measures initially proposed by the Council and Commission to be less restrictive than measures that some states would be required to implement under the performance-based adjustment. To rectify this situation, the Board voted in February 2008 to implement a modified precautionary default consisting of a 20.0-inch (50.80-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of two fish, and an open season of July 4 through September 1, 2008, to ensure that the necessary level of reduction for all states would occur in the event that precautionary default measures are assigned to any state for 2008. NMFS finds this modification to the precautionary default measures (i.e., reduction in fishing season) to be consistent with Framework Adjustment 2 that established the precautionary default reduction requirements, and therefore proposes to implement the modified precautionary default measures adopted by the Board and Commission: A 20.0-inch (50.80-cm) minimum fish size, a two fish possession limit, and an open season of July 4 through September 1, 2008. As described above, for each fishing year, NMFS implements either coastwide measures or conservation equivalent measures at the final rule stage. The coastwide measures recommended by the Council and Board for 2008 are a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of three fish, and an open season from May 23 to September 1, 2008. Supplemental analysis conducted by NMFS using the upper bound of the 2007 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) harvest estimates and factoring in potential diminished effectiveness of regulations based on noncompliance in 2007 demonstrates that these coastwide measures, as proposed by the Council and Board, may not effectively constrain landings to the 2008 recreational harvest limit if implemented instead of conservation equivalency. In this action, NMFS proposes to modify the Council and Board's recommended possession limit from a three fish to a two fish limit. The change in possession limit, while retaining the Council and Board recommended minimum fish size and fishing season, would be expected to constrain landings to the overall recreational harvest. These modified coastwide measures would be waived if conservation equivalency is approved in the final rule. Scup The 2008 scup recreational harvest limit is lb 1,830,920 lb (830 mt), roughly a 33-percent decrease from the 2007 recreational harvest limit of 2.74 million lb (1,240 mt). Fishing year 2008 is year 1 of the scup rebuilding plan implemented by Amendment 14 to the FMP (July 23, 2007; 72 FR 40077). The substantial reduction in the 2008 recreational harvest limit is largely a result of a necessary reduction in exploitation on the scup stock consistent with this recently enacted management plan designed to rebuild the scup resource from an overfished condition. Recreational landings in 2007 were estimated to have been 3.80 million lb (1,723 mt). A coastwide reduction in landings of 51.8 percent is required to achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limit for scup. The 2008 scup recreational fishery will be managed under separate regulations for state and Federal waters; the Federal measures would apply to party/charter vessels with Federal permits and other vessels subject to the possession limit that fish in the EEZ. In Federal waters, to achieve the 2008 target, NMFS proposes coastwide management measures of a 10.5-inch (26.67-cm) minimum fish size, a 15-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29, and October 1 through October 31, as recommended by the Council. As has occurred in the past 6 years, the scup fishery in state waters will be managed under a regional conservation equivalency system developed through the Commission. Addendum XI to the Interstate FMP (Addendum XI), approved by the Board at the January 2004 Council/Commission meeting, requires that the states of MA through NY each develop state-specific management measures to constrain their landings to an annual harvest level for this region in number of fish (approximately 1.7 million fish for 2008), through a combination of minimum fish size, possession limits, and seasonal closures. Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation equivalency, and states may adopt their own unique measures under Addendum XI, the Federal and state recreational scup management measures will differ for 2008. At the February 7, 2008, meeting, the Board approved a regional management proposal for MA through NY that would allow different minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons for private vessels/shore based anglers and party/charter vessels. For this northern conservation equivalency area, the Board retained a minimum fish size of 10.5 inches (26.7 cm), a common possession limit (10 fish), and a May 24 through September 26 fishing season for private vessels and shore-based anglers; party and charter vessels may take scup for up to 126 days under two distinct seasons with separate minimum fish sizes, possession limits and seasons. One charter/party season, designated as “bonus fishery” has a minimum fish size of 11.0 inches (27.94 cm), a 45-fish possession limit, and is constrained to a 45-day period within May 15 through October 15. The second party/charter season designation is the “non-bonus fishery” which carries an 11.0-inch (27.94 cm) minimum fish size, a 10-fish possession limit, and is 81 days in duration either prior to or following the dates of the open season. Due to low scup landings in NJ through NC, the Board approved the retention of status quo management measures for those states, i.e., a 10-inch (25.40-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and September 18 through November 30. Black Sea Bass Recreational landings in 2007 were estimated to have been 1.97 million lb (890 mt)—20 percent below the 2007 target of 2.47 million lb (1,120 mt) and 7 percent below the 2008 target of 2.11 million lb (957 mt). The 2008 recreational harvest limit of 2.11 million lb (957 mt) is a 14.6-percent decrease from the 2007 target. Based on 2007 landings, no reduction in landings is necessary to achieve the 2008 target. For Federal waters, the Council and Board have approved measures that would maintain the 25-fish possession limit, the 12-inch (30.48-cm) minimum size, and open season of January 1 through December 31. NMFS proposes to maintain these measures, which are expected to constrain recreational black sea bass landings to the 2008 target. Classification Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Acting Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of the complete IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. The proposed action could affect any recreational angler who fishes for summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass in the EEZ or on a party/charter vessel issued a Federal permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass. However, the IRFA focuses upon the impacts on party/charter vessels issued a Federal permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass because these vessels are considered small business entities for the purposes of the RFA, i.e., businesses in the recreational fishery with gross revenues of up to $6.5 million. These small entities can be specifically identified in the Federal vessel permit database and would be impacted by the recreational measures, regardless of whether they fish in Federal or state waters. Although individual recreational anglers are likely to be impacted, they are not considered small entities under the RFA. Also, there is no permit requirement to participate in these fisheries; thus, it would be difficult to quantify any impacts on recreational anglers in general. The Council estimated that the proposed measures could affect any of the 919 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2006, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 369 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in 2006. In the IRFA, the no-action alternative (i.e., maintenance of the regulations as codified) is defined as implementation of the following:

(1)For summer flounder, coastwide measures of a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a 2-fish possession limit, and a season from May 23 through September 1, i.e., the Federal regulatory measure that would be implemented if conservation equivalency is not implemented in the final rule;

(2)for scup, a 10-inch (25.40-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 28, and September 18 through November 30; and

(3)for black sea bass, a 12-inch (30.48-cm) minimum size, a 25-fish possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31. The no-action alternative for black sea bass is the same (status quo) set of measures being proposed for 2008. Landings of black sea bass in 2007 was less than the 2008 target and the status quo measures are expected to constrain landings to the 2008 target. As such, since there is no regulatory change being proposed for black sea bass, there is no further discussion of the economic impacts within this section. The impacts of the proposed action on small entities (i.e., federally permitted party/charter vessels in each state in the Northeast region) was analyzed, assessing potential changes in gross revenues for all 18 combinations of alternatives proposed. Although NMFS's RFA guidance recommends assessing changes in profitability as a result of proposed measures, the quantitative impacts were instead evaluated using changes in party/charter vessel revenues as a proxy for profitability. This is because reliable cost and revenue information are not available for charter/party vessels at this time. Without reliable cost and revenue data, profits cannot be discriminated from gross revenues. As reliable cost data become available, impacts to profitability can be more accurately forecast. Similarly, changes to long-term solvency were not assessed due both to the absence of cost data and because the recreational management measures change annually according to the specification-setting process. Effects of the various management measures were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches, to the extent possible. Where quantitative data were not available, the qualitative analyses were utilized. Management measures proposed under the summer flounder conservation equivalency alternative (Summer Flounder Alternative 1) have yet to be adopted; therefore, potential losses under this alternative could not be analyzed in conjunction with various alternatives proposed for scup and black sea bass. Since conservation equivalency allows each state to tailor specific recreational fishing measures to the needs of that state, while still achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the measures developed under this alternative, when considered in combination with the measures proposed for scup and black sea bass, would have fewer overall adverse effects than any of the other combinations that were analyzed. Impacts for other combinations of alternatives were examined by first estimating the number of angler trips aboard party/charter vessels in each state in 2007 that would have been affected by the proposed 2008 management measures. All 2007 party/charter fishing trips that would have been constrained by the proposed 2008 measures in each state were considered to be affected trips. MRFSS data indicate that anglers took 38.70 million fishing trips in 2007 in the Northeastern U.S., and that party/charter anglers accounted for 4.7 percent of the angler fishing trips, private/rental boat trips accounted for 52.5 percent of angler fishing trips, and shore trips accounted for 42.8 percent of recreational angler fishing trips. The number of party/charter trips in each state ranged from 23,542 in DE to 508,259 in NJ. There is very little empirical evidence available to estimate how the party/charter vessel anglers might be affected by the proposed fishing regulations. If the proposed measures discourage trip-taking behavior among some of the affected anglers, economic losses may accrue to the party/charter vessel industry in the form of reduced access fees. On the other hand, if the proposed measures do not have a negative impact on the value or satisfaction the affected anglers derive from their fishing trips, party/charter revenues would remain unaffected by this action. In an attempt to estimate the potential changes in gross revenues to the party/charter vessel industry in each state, two hypothetical scenarios were considered: A 25-percent reduction, and a 50-percent reduction, in the number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by implementation of the management measures in the northeast (ME through NC) in 2008. Total economic losses to party/charter vessels were then estimated by multiplying the number of potentially affected trips in each state in 2008, under the two hypothetical scenarios, by the estimated average access fee of $41.32 1 paid by party/charter anglers in the northeast in 2007. Finally, total economic losses were divided by the number of federally permitted party/charter vessels that participated in the summer flounder fisheries in 2006 in each state (according to homeport state in the Northeast Region Permit Database) to obtain an estimate of the average projected gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel in 2008. The analysis assumed that angler effort and catch rates in 2008 will be similar to 2007. 1 1998 party/charter average expenditure estimate adjusted to 2007 equivalent using Bureau of Labor's Consumer Price Index. The Council noted that this method is likely to overestimate the potential revenue losses that would result from implementation of the proposed coastwide measures in these three fisheries for several reasons. First, the analysis likely overestimates the potential revenue impacts of these measures because some anglers would continue to take party/charter vessel trips, even if the restrictions limit their landings. Also, some anglers may engage in catch and release fishing and/or target other species. It was not possible to estimate the sensitivity of anglers to specific management measures. Second, the universe of party/charter vessels that participate in the fisheries is likely to be even larger than presented in these analyses, as party/charter vessels that do not possess a Federal summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass permit because they fish only in state waters are not represented in the analyses. Considering the large proportion of landings from state waters (e.g., more than 91 percent of summer flounder and 94 percent of scup landings in 2006, respectively), it is probable that some party/charter vessels fish only in state waters and, thus, do not hold Federal permits for these fisheries. Third, economic losses are estimated under two hypothetical scenarios:

(1)A 25 percent and

(2)a 50 percent reduction in the number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by implementation of the management measures in the Northeast in 2008. Reductions in fishing effort of this magnitude in 2008 are not likely to occur given the fact that the proposed measures do not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch or the fact that there are alternative species to harvest. Again, it is likely that at least some of the potentially affected anglers would not reduce their effort when faced with the proposed landings restrictions, thereby contributing to the potential overestimation of potential impacts for 2008. Impacts of Summer Flounder Alternatives The proposed action for the summer flounder recreational fishery would limit coastwide catch to 6.21 million lb (2,817 mt) by imposing coastwide Federal measures throughout the EEZ. As described earlier, upon confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures. The impact of the proposed summer flounder conservation equivalency alternative (in Summer Flounder Alternative 1) among states is likely to be similar to the level of landings reductions that are required of each state. As indicated above, each state except MA would be required to reduce summer flounder landings in 2008, relative to state 2007 landings, by the percentages shown in Table 1 of the preamble of this proposed rule. If the preferred conservation equivalency alternative is effective at achieving the recreational harvest limit, then it is likely to be the only alternative that minimizes adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable, yet achieves the biological objectives of the FMP. Because states have a choice, it is expected that the states would adopt conservation equivalent measures that result in fewer adverse economic impacts than the more restrictive Commission adopted, NMFS proposed precautionary default measures (i.e., 20.0-inch (50.80-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of two fish, and an open season of July 4 through September 1). Under the precautionary default measures, impacted trips are defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least two summer flounder smaller than 20.0 inches (50.80 cm) or landed summer flounder during closed seasons. The analysis concluded that implementation of precautionary default measures could affect 4.28 percent of the party/charter vessel trips in the Northeast, including those trips where no summer flounder were caught. The impacts of the NMFS proposed summer flounder coastwide alternative, i.e., a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a two-fish possession limit, and a fishing season from May 23 through September 1, were evaluated using the quantitative method described above. Impacted trips were defined as individual angler trips taken aboard party/charter vessels in 2007 that landed at least one summer flounder smaller than 19 inches (48.26 cm), that landed more than 2 summer flounder, or landed summer flounder during closed seasons. The analysis concluded that the measures would affect 1.34 percent of the party/charter vessel trips in the Northeast, including those trips where no summer flounder were caught. Continuation of the current regulatory summer flounder coastwide management measures (i.e., an 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, 4-fish possession limit, and year-round season) is not expected to constrain 2008 landings to the recreational harvest limit; therefore, continuation of those measures would be inconsistent with the summer flounder rebuilding program, the FMP, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Impacts of Scup Alternatives The proposed action for the scup recreational fishery would limit coastwide catch to 1.83 million lb (830 mt) by imposing coastwide Federal measures throughout the EEZ. As described earlier in the preamble, a conservation equivalent program is utilized by the Commission to manage state waters. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by NMFS; charter/party vessels participating solely in state waters would be subject to the provisions adopted by the Commission; vessels participating in both state and Federal waters would be subject to the most restrictive of the two measures implemented to manage the 2008 scup recreational fishery. The impact of the Council and Commission preferred scup alternative (Scup Alternative 1; a 10.5-inch (26.67-cm) minimum fish size, a 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 31) would reduce scup landings in 2008 by 53.2 percent from 2007 levels. Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least one scup smaller than 10.5 inches (26.67 cm), landed more than 15 scup during the closed seasons (March 1 through September 30 and November 1 through December 31). Analysis concluded that 3.95 percent of Federally permitted party/charter vessel trips could be impacted by this alternative. The impacts of the non-preferred scup coastwide alternative (Scup Alternative 2; 10.5-inch (26.67-cm) minimum fish size, 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 15) would reduce landings in 2008 by 60.5 percent from 2007 levels. Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least one scup smaller than the minimum fish size, more than the possession limit, or during the closed season. The analysis concluded that this alternative could impact 4.13 percent of Federally permitted party/charter vessel trips in 2008, if implemented. Scup Alternative 3 (status quo) measures are not expected to constrain landings to the 2008 recreational harvest limit and are therefore, inconsistent with the current scup rebuilding plan, the FMP, and the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Combined Impacts of Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Alternatives Since the state-specific management measures under Summer Flounder Alternative 1 (i.e., conservation equivalency) have yet to be adopted, the effort effects of this alternative could not be analyzed in conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and black sea bass. The percent of total party/charter boat trips in the northeast that are estimated to be affected by the proposed actions ranges from a low of 4.59 percent for the combination of measures proposed under summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 2 (Table 45 Initial Specifications) to 8.90 percent for the measures proposed under the NMFS summer flounder precautionary default combined with scup alternative 2 and black sea bass alternative 3. Regionally, Federally permitted party/charter revenue losses in 2008 range from $2.90 million to $5.14 million in sales, $1.06 million to $1.88 million in income, and between 28 and 50 jobs if a 25-percent reduction in the number of affected trips occurs. The estimated losses are approximately twice as high if a 50-percent reduction in affected trips is assumed to occur. Potential revenue losses in 2008 could differ for Federally permitted party/charter vessels that land more than one of the regulated species. The cumulative maximum gross revenue loss per vessel varies by the combination of permits held and by state. All 18 potential combinations of management alternatives for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are predicted to affect party/charter vessel revenues to some extent in all of the northeastern coastal states. Although potential losses were estimated for party/charter vessels operating out of Maine and New Hampshire, these results are suppressed for confidentiality purposes. Average party/charter losses for federally permitted vessels operating in the remaining states are estimated to vary across the 18 combinations of alternatives. For example, in North Carolina, average losses are predicted to range from a high of $14,330 per vessel under the combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default measures (considered under alternative 1), Scup Alternatives 1 or 2, and Black Sea Bass Alternatives 1 or 3 management measures, to a low of $7,734 per vessel under the combined effects of Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 3, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 2 management measures, assuming a 25-percent reduction in effort, as described above. Average gross revenue losses per vessel under each of the 36 combinations of alternatives were generally highest in North Carolina followed by Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland and then Delaware. Summary The recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are 7.2-, 33.6-, and 14.6-percent lower than the adjusted recreational harvest limits for year 2007. In addition, the 2007 summer flounder recreational fishery exceeded the recreational harvest limit by 37.8 percent. As a result, the proposed recreational management measures for summer flounder are likely to be more restrictive for 2008 (i.e., either larger minimum fish size, lower possession limits, and/or shorter fishing seasons) under the proposed conservation equivalency system (Summer Flounder Alternative 1) than those in place in 2007 given the combined effects of a reduced TAL and exceeding the previous year recreational harvest limit. The proposed measures for scup are more restrictive than the measures in place for 2008. The proposed black sea bass measures are status quo, despite decreases to the overall 2008 black sea bass TAL. The proposed management measures, or management system in the case of conservation equivalency, were chosen because they allow for the maximum level of recreational landings, while allowing the NMFS to meet its legal requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act while achieving the objectives of the FMP. Summer flounder conservation equivalency permits states to implement management measures tailored, to some degree, to meet the needs of their individual recreational fishery participants, provided the level of reduction is equal to the overall reduction needed coastwide, consistent with Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP. The scup management measures were selected as they are projected to permit the maximum amount of landings under the 2008 recreational harvest limit that complies with the fishing mortality objective outlined in the scup rebuilding plan of Amendment 14 to the FMP. As no reduction in landing levels from 2007 levels is required for black sea bass, the status quo measures are proposed for 2008. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 17, 2008 James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.102, the first sentence is revised to read as follows: § 648.102 Time restrictions. Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3) and fishermen subject to the possession limit may fish for summer flounder from May 23 through September 1. * * * 3. In § 648.103, paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.103 Minimum fish sizes.

(b)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, the minimum size for summer flounder is 19-inch (48.26-cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members. 4. In § 648.105, the first sentence of paragraph

(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.105 Possession restrictions.

(a)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, no person shall possess more than two summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit. * * * 5. In § 648.107, paragraph

(a)introductory text and paragraph

(b)are revised to read as follows: § 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.

(a)The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2008 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum fish size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

(b)Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season-July 4 through September 1; minimum size-20.0 inches (50.80 cm); and possession limit-two fish. 6. In § 648.122, paragraph

(g)is revised to read as follows: § 648.122 Season and area restrictions.

(g)*Time restrictions* . Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(6), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may not possess scup, except from January 1 through the last day of February, and from October 1 through October 31. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.120. 7. In § 648.124, paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.124 Minimum fish sizes.

(b)The minimum size for scup is 10.5 inches (26.67 cm) TL for all vessels that do not have a moratorium permit, or for party and charter vessels that are issued a moratorium permit but are fishing with passengers for hire, or carrying more than three crew members if a charter boat, or more than five crew members if a party boat. 8. In § 648.125, the introductory text of paragraph

(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.125 Possession limit.

(a)No person shall possess more than 15 scup in, or harvested from, the EEZ unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a scup moratorium permit, or is issued a scup dealer permit. * * * [FR Doc. E8-5785 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 RIN 0648-AW45 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. SUMMARY: Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Crab Rationalization Program (Program). The Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Amendment 26 would modify the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)King and Tanner crabs

(FMP)and the Program to Amendment 26 to the FMP would exempt quota share issued to crew members, and the annual harvest privileges derived from that quota share, from requirements for: delivery to specific processors; delivery within specific geographic regions; and participation in an arbitration system to resolve price disputes. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws. DATES: Comments on the amendment must be received by May 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW45, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the FederaleRulemaking Portal website at *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Fax:

(907)586-7557. • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9 th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file

(pdf)formats only. Copies of Amendment 26, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)for this action, and the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228, *glenn.merrill@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Program. Regulations implementing these amendments were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174) and are located at 50 CFR part 680. The Council submitted Amendment 26 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which would make minor changes to the FMP necessary for the management of quota share (QS), which is a long-term harvest privilege, and individual fishing quota (IFQ), which is the annual allocation of a specific amount of crab issued to a person based on the amount of QS they hold. Under the Program, NMFS issued QS to persons based on their qualifying harvest histories in BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period of time as defined under the Program. Four types of QS were issued under the Program. The first two types of QS were issued to holders of license limitation program

(LLP)licenses endorsed for a crab fishery. Catcher/processor LLP license holders were allocated catcher/processor vessel owner

(CPO)QS based on the catch history of catcher processors using an LLP license; catcher vessel LLP license holders were issued catcher vessel

(CVO)QS based on the catch history of catcher vessels using an LLP license. Under the Program, 97 percent of the QS was initially issued as CVO and CPO QS. The remaining three percent of the QS was initially issued to vessel captains and crew as “C shares”, based on their harvest histories as crew members onboard crab fishing vessels. Captains onboard catcher/processor vessels were issued catcher/processor crew

(CPC)QS; captains and crew onboard catcher vessels were issued catcher vessel crew

(CVC)QS. The Program also established specific requirements for the use of QS and IFQ. Specifically, the Program requires that CVO QS/IFQ and CVC QS/IFQ is subject to:

(1)Delivery requirements to a specific onshore processor or stationary floating crab processor;

(2)delivery within specific geographic regions, also known as regionalization; and

(3)requirements to participate in a binding arbitration system. These provisions were designed to provide stability to specific processors and communities with historic participation in the fisheries by ensuring that harvesters did not deliver catch without some degree of coordination and compensation to these traditional participants. The arbitration system established by the Program seeks to guarantee that price disputes arising among harvesters and processors can be fairly and equitably resolved. The Program exempts CVC QS/IFQ from these requirements for the first three years of the Program, which expires on June 30, 2008. The Program did not apply these restrictions to CVC QS/IFQ due to the limited amount of CVC QS/IFQ issued relative to all other quota types, and the potential logistical complexities and additional costs these requirements could impose on CVC QS/IFQ holders. The three year grace period was intended to provide participants time to adapt to the Program. In addition, the Council recommended that this specific provision be reviewed after 18 months and an FMP amendment be developed if subsequent analysis indicated that revisions were appropriate. If approved, Amendment 26 to the FMP would modify CVC QS and IFQ so that a person holding CVC QS/IFQ would not be subject to delivery, regionalization, or arbitration system requirements after June 30, 2008. As described in greater detail in the draft RIR/IRFA prepared for this action, based on the additional costs and complexity that will result to CVC QS/IFQ holders and the very limited benefits that may accrue to some processors and communities if the permanent exemption were not granted, the Council has recommended this FMP amendment to relive these requirements. Currently, CVC QS/IFQ holders are not subject to these requirements, and this proposed rule would merely extend the existing exemption. Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 26 through the end of the comment period (see DATES ). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 26 in the **Federal Register** for public comment, following NMFS( evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 26 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 26. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 26, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by the close of business on the last day of the comment period. Dated: March 17, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5789 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 56 Friday, March 21, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 17, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* RUS Electric Loan Application and Related Reporting Burdens. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0032. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS)was established in 1994 by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354, 108 stat. 3178, 7 U.S.C. 6941 *et seq.* ) as successor to the Rural Electrification Administration

(REA)with respect to certain programs, including the electric loan and loan guarantee program authorized under the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936. The RE Act authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to make and guarantee loans to furnish and improve electric service in rural areas. These loans are amortized over a period of up to 35 years and secured by the borrower's electric assets. RUS will collect information including studies and reports to support borrower loan applications. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will collect information to determine the eligibility of applicants for loans and loan guarantees under the RE Act; monitor the compliance of borrowers with debt covenants and regulatory requirements in order to protect loan security; ensure that borrowers use loan funds for purposes consistent with the statutory goals of the RE Act; and obtain information on the progress of rural electrification and evaluate the success of RUS program activities. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 675. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 59,306. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5711 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-08-0007; FV08-378] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's

(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for a new information collection survey of customers, related to the delivery of services by AMS under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as amended (PACA). This voluntary survey would give customers of the PACA program an opportunity to provide feedback to AMS on the quality of the service they receive via the PACA Customer Service Line. It would also give them an opportunity to indicate what new PACA services, if any, that they would like to receive. DATES: Comments received by May 20, 2008 will be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit written or electronic comments to:

(1)PACA Customer Service Line Comments, AMS, F&V Programs, PACA Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2095-S, Stop 0242, Washington, DC 20250-0242.

(2)Fax: 202-690-4413.

(3)E-mail comments to *dexter.thomas@usda.gov.*

(4)Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Instructions: All comments will become a matter of public record and should be identified as PACA Customer Service Line Comments. Comments will be available for public inspection from AMS at the above address or over the AMS Web site at *www.ams.usda.gov/fv.* Web site questions can be addressed to the PACA Webmaster, *dexter.thomas@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA or Act) establishes a code of fair trade practices covering the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce. The PACA protects growers, shippers, distributors, and retailers dealing in those commodities by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade practices. In this way, the law fosters an efficient nationwide distribution system for fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, benefiting the whole marketing chain from farmer to consumer. AMS administers and enforces the PACA. The law provides a forum for resolving contract disputes, and a mechanism for the collection of damages from any licensee (or one subject to license) who fails to meet contractual obligations. In addition, the PACA provides for prompt payment to fruit and vegetable sellers and for revocation of licenses and sanctions against firms or principals found to have violated the law's standards of fair business practices. The PACA also imposes a statutory trust that attaches to perishable agricultural commodities received by regulated entities, products derived from the commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of the commodities. The trust exists for the benefit of produce suppliers, sellers, or agents that have not been paid, and continues until they have been paid in full. The PACA is enforced and financed through a licensing system. All commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in business subject to the PACA must be licensed; however, growers that sell produce of their own raising only are not required to obtain a license. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked. There are approximately 14,500 firms licensed under the PACA to operate in the produce industry. These customers are located nationwide and include fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, brokers and commission merchants who buy, sell, and negotiate to buy or sell fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and/or foreign commerce. These customers may request services from the PACA Branch's headquarters and/or field offices. To better facilitate the delivery of services to the fruit and vegetable industry, AMS in early Fiscal Year 2007 launched the PACA Branch's Customer Service Line, a fast and easy way for fruit and vegetable industry members to get answers to their questions on a wide range of PACA related issues. The customer service line provides callers with immediate access to experts who can offer advice on a variety of PACA topics including contract disputes, interpretation of inspection reports, guidance regarding a good delivery issue, and license information. The goal of AMS and the PACA Branch is to provide timely, high quality, accurate, consistent, and professional service that facilitates fair trading practices in the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce. To accomplish this goal and in accordance with Executive Order 12862, AMS is seeking feedback from customers to evaluate the services provided by the PACA Customer Service Line. *Title:* PACA Customer Service Line User Survey. *OMB Number:* 0581-NEW. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Abstract:* The collection of information using a voluntary customer service survey will provide AMS' PACA customers with an opportunity to evaluate, on a scale of one to five, the timeliness, cost-effectiveness, accuracy, consistency, and usefulness of services and results, and the professionalism of PACA Branch employees. Customers will also have an opportunity to indicate what new or existing services they would use if such services were offered or available. AMS needs to have a more formal means of determining customers' expectations of the quality of service delivered by the PACA program. To collect this information, AMS proposes to randomly conduct, over a 3-year period, a voluntary customer survey. The survey instrument will consist of up to nine questions. The survey instrument may be changed during the 3-year period in response to information gathered from survey participants. The information collected from the survey will allow AMS to determine customers' satisfaction with existing PACA services, compare results from year to year, and determine what new services customers' desire. Examples of the type of feedback that will be asked for on the survey include the following: “I found the PACA Customer Service Line recording easy to use and follow;” “PACA personnel are courteous and professional;” and “PACA personnel were helpful.” Most survey questions will be assessed using a one to five rating scale with responses ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” or “no opinion.” Some survey questions may be in the form of “yes” or “no” questions. Customers may also be asked to provide a response to the following question: “Do you have any further comments or suggestions concerning the PACA Customer Service Line or other aspects of PACA customer service?” By obtaining information from customers through a voluntary customer service survey, AMS will continue to improve services and service delivery provided by the PACA program to meet or exceed customer expectations. We estimate the paperwork and time burden of the above referenced information collection to be as follows: *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes ( *i.e.* , 0.083 hours) per response. *Respondents:* The primary respondents will be both licensed and unlicensed PACA customers that call the toll-free PACA Customer Service Line-fruit and vegetable growers, commission merchants, dealers, and brokers. *FY 2009—Estimated Number of Respondents:* 240 (i.e., 10% of 200 × 12 = 240—the average number of monthly customers using the Customer Service Line). *Frequency of Responses:* 1. *FY 2010—Estimated Number of Respondents:* 240 (i.e., 10% of 200 × 12 = 240—the average number of monthly customers using the Customer Service Line). *Frequency of Responses:* 1. *FY 2011—Estimated Number of Respondents:* 240 (i.e., 10% of 200 × 12 = 240—the average number of monthly customers using the Customer Service Line). *Frequency of Responses:* 1. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 19.92 hours (240 times 0.083 hours/response = 19.92 hours). Comments are invited on:

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

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 17, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-5749 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-08-0013; FV08-379] Regulations Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of review and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)plans to review the Regulations (Other than Rules of Practice) under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as amended, under the criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). DATES: Comments received by May 20, 2008 will be considered. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice of review—the economic impact of the PACA Regulations on a substantial number of small businesses. You may submit written or electronic comments to:

(1)PACA 610 Review Comments, AMS, F&V Programs, PACA Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2095-S, Stop 0242, Washington, DC 20250-0242.

(2)Fax: 202-690-4413.

(3)E-mail comments to *dexter.thomas@usda.gov.*

(4)Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Instructions:* All comments will become a matter of public record and should be identified as PACA 610 Review Comments. Comments will be available for public inspection from AMS at the above address or on the AMS Web site at *www.ams.usda.gov/fv.* Web site questions can be addressed to the PACA webmaster, *dexter.thomas@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA or Act) (7 U.S.C. 499a-499t) establishes a code of fair trade practices covering the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce. The PACA protects growers, shippers, distributors, and retailers dealing in those commodities by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade practices. In this way, the law fosters an efficient nationwide distribution system for fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, benefiting the whole marketing chain from farmer to consumer. AMS administers and enforces the PACA. The law provides a forum for resolving contract disputes, and a mechanism for the collection of damages from any licensee (or one subject to license) who fails to meet contractual obligations. In addition, the PACA provides for prompt payment to fruit and vegetable sellers and for revocation of licenses and sanctions against firms or principals found to have violated the law's standards of fair business practices. The PACA also imposes a statutory trust that attaches to perishable agricultural commodities received by regulated entities, products derived from the commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of the commodities. The trust exists for the benefit of produce suppliers, sellers, or agents that have not been paid, and continues until they have been paid in full. The PACA is enforced and financed through a licensing system. All commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in business subject to the PACA must be licensed. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked. There are approximately 14,500 firms that are licensed under the PACA to operate in the produce industry. PACA licensees are located nationwide and include dealers, brokers and commission merchants who buy, sell, and negotiate to buy or sell fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and/or foreign commerce. AMS initially published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 48574, August 14, 2003) its plan to review certain regulations, including regulations (7 CFR part 46) under the PACA, under criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601-612). An updated plan was published in the **Federal Register** on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). Because many of AMS' regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to review certain regulations which, although they may not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as required in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 610), merit review. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the PACA Regulations (Other than Rules of Practice) should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Act) to minimize any significant economic impact of the regulations upon a substantial number of small businesses. AMS will consider the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the PACA regulations;

(2)the nature of the complaints or comments received from the public concerning the PACA regulations;

(3)the complexity of the PACA regulations;

(4)the extent to which the PACA regulations overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

(5)the length of time since the PACA regulations have been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the PACA regulations. Dated: March 17, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-5750 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Emergency Food Assistance Program; Availability of Commodities for Fiscal Year 2008 AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the surplus and purchased commodities that the Department expects to make available for donation to States for use in providing nutrition assistance to the needy under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in Fiscal Year

(FY)2008. The commodities made available under this notice must, at the discretion of the State, be distributed to eligible recipient agencies for use in preparing meals and/or for distribution to households for home consumption. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillie Ragan, Assistant Branch Chief, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594 or telephone

(703)305-2662. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (EFAA), 7 U.S.C. 7501 note, the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2011, *et seq.* , and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Department makes commodities and administrative funds available to States for use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need through TEFAP. In accordance with 7 CFR 251.3(h), 60 percent of each State's share of TEFAP commodities and administrative funds is based on the number of people with incomes below the poverty level within the State and 40 percent on the number of unemployed persons within the State. State officials are responsible for establishing the network through which the commodities will be used by eligible recipient agencies

(ERAs)in providing nutrition assistance to those in need, and for allocating commodities and administrative funds among those agencies. States have full discretion in determining the amount of commodities that will be made available to ERAs for use in preparing meals and/or for distribution to households for home consumption. The types of commodities the Department expects to make available to States for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2008 are described below. Surplus Commodities Surplus commodities donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)commodities purchased under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and commodities purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of commodities typically purchased under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of commodities purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices, and fruits. In FY 2008, the Department anticipates that there will be sufficient quantities of cherry products, grapefruit juice, tomatoes, green beans, carrots, peas, spinach, canned beef stew, canned beef, and canned pork to support the distribution of these commodities through TEFAP. Other surplus commodities may be made available to TEFAP throughout the year. The Department would like to point out that commodity acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of commodities is subject to change. Approximately $16.9 million in surplus commodities acquired in FY 2007 are being delivered to States in FY 2008. These commodities include canned chicken, peanut butter, instant milk, apple juice, applesauce, apricots, frozen asparagus, canned asparagus, cherry apple juice, lamb leg roast, lamb shoulder chops. Purchased Commodities In accordance with section 27 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2036, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Secretary is directed to purchase annually, through FY 2008, $140 million worth of commodities for distribution through TEFAP. These commodities are made available to States in addition to those surplus commodities which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, permits States to convert any or their entire fair share of $10 million of these funds to administrative funds to pay costs associated with the distribution of TEFAP commodities at the State and local level. For FY 2008, the Department anticipates purchasing the following commodities for distribution through TEFAP: dehydrated potatoes, frozen ground beef, frozen whole and cut-up chicken, frozen ham, frozen turkey roast, blackeye beans, great northern beans, light kidney beans, light red kidney beans, lima beans, pinto beans, egg mix, lowfat bakery mix, egg noodles, white and yellow corn grits, macaroni, oats, peanut butter, whole grain rotini, roasted peanuts, rice, spaghetti, vegetable oil, bran flakes, corn flakes, oat cereal, rice cereal, corn cereal, and corn and rice cereal; and the following canned items: green beans, blackeye beans, refried beans, vegetarian beans, carrots, cream corn, whole kernel corn, peas, sliced potatoes, pumpkin, spaghetti sauce, spinach, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, diced tomatoes, tomato sauce, mixed vegetables, low salt tomato soup, apple juice, cherry apple juice, cranapple juice, grape juice, grapefruit juice, orange juice, tomato juice, apricots, applesauce, mixed fruit, peaches, pears, plums, beef, beef stew, chicken, pork, tuna, and turkey. The amounts of each item purchased will depend on the prices the Department must pay, as well as the quantity of each item requested by the States. Changes in agricultural market conditions may result in the availability of additional types of commodities or the non-availability of one or more types listed above. Dated: March 13, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-5760 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; National Woodland Owner Survey AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the reinstated information collection, National Woodland Owner Survey. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before May 20, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Brett Butler, USDA Forest Service, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA 01003. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to

(413)545-1860 or by e-mail to *bbutler01@fs.fed.us* . The public may inspect comments received at 160 Holdsworth Way, Room 303, Amherst, MA 01003 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to

(413)545-1387 to facilitate entry to the building. Additional comments can be viewed at *www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Butler, Northern Research Station,

(413)545-1387. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* National Woodland Owner Survey. *OMB Number:* 0596-0078 (reinstatement). *Type of Request:* Reinstatement. *Abstract:* The Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA)program conducts the National Woodland Owner Survey

(NWOS)to increase our understanding of: • Who owns the forests of the United States; • Why they own it; • How they have used it; and • How they intend to use it. This information is used by policy analysts, foresters, educators, and researchers to facilitate the planning and implementation of forest policies and programs. The Forest Service's direction and authority to conduct the NWOS is from the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Act of 1978. These acts assign responsibility for the inventory and assessment of forest and related renewable resources to the Forest Service. Additionally, the importance of an ownership survey in this inventory and assessment process is highlighted in Section 253(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 and the recommendations of the Second Blue Ribbon Panel on the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. Previous iterations of the NWOS were conducted in 1978, 1993, and 2002-2006. Approval for the last iteration of the NWOS expired on December 31, 2006. Between 2002 and 2006, the NWOS was implemented on an annual basis to provide more robust and current information and to conform with the overall FIA sampling protocols. As planned, approval for the information collection was allowed to lapse after 2006, to permit a full assessment of the program that has now been completed. If reinstated, the NWOS will operate for another 5-year cycle, with federal approval being sought as necessary to cover the full survey cycle, before the next full reassessment occurs. Information will be collected related to: • The characteristics of the owners' landholdings; • Ownership objectives; • Forest use and management; • Owners' concerns; • Future uses of the forest land; and • Landowner demographics. The NWOS provides widely cited benchmarks for the number, extent, and characteristics of private forest land owners of the United States. These results have been used to assess the sustainability of forest resources at national, regional, and state levels; to implement and assess forest land owner assistance programs; and to answer a variety of questions with topics ranging from fragmentation to the economics of private timber production. The respondents will be a statistically selected group of individuals, families, American Indian tribes, partnerships, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other private groups that own forest land in the United States. Public records will be used to collect names and addresses for a systematic set of points identified as forest land. The number of forest-land owners to be contacted in each state will be determined by the number of private forest-land owners and the sampling intensity. The NWOS will utilize a mixed-mode survey technique involving a self-administered mail questionnaire and telephone interviews. First, a pre-notice letter or postcard will be sent to all potential respondents describing this information collection and explaining why the information is being collected. Second, a questionnaire with a cover letter and pre-paid return envelope will be mailed to the potential respondents. The cover letter will reiterate the purpose of this information collection and provide the respondents with all legally required information. Third, a reminder will be mailed to thank the respondents and encourage the non-respondents to respond. Those who have yet to respond will be sent a new questionnaire, cover letter, and pre-paid return envelope. Telephone interviews will be used for follow-up with non-respondents. FIA personnel will administer the mail portion of this information collection. The telephone follow-ups will be conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Data will be compiled and edited by FIA personnel. FIA personnel will analyze the collected data. National, regional, and state-level results will be distributed through print and/or electronic media. This information collection will generate scientifically based, up-to-date information about private forest-land owners in the United States. The results of these efforts will provide more reliable information on this important and dynamic segment of the United States population, thus facilitating more complete assessments of the country's forest resources, and improved planning and implementation of forestry programs. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 20 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals, families, American Indian Tribes, partnerships, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other private groups that own forest land. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 7,500. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 2,500 hours. Comment Is Invited Comment is invited on:

(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: March 14, 2008. David A. Cleaves, Associate Deputy Chief, Research & Development. [FR Doc. E8-5710 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest, Bearlodge Ranger District, WY and Northern Hills Ranger District, SD, North Zone Range 08 Analysis AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; cancellation. SUMMARY: On November 5, 2007, the **Federal Register** published a Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the North Zone Range 08 Analysis on the Black Hills National Forest (72 FR 62428-62429). The responsible officials for this analysis have decided that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted for this project. An Environmental Assessment will be prepared for the North Zone Range 08 analysis. The responsible officials will document their rationale in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be subsequently prepared. The FONSI will accompany the Decision Notice for this project. The Notice of Intent is hereby cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Allen, Environmental Coordinator, TEAMS Enterprise, Forest Service, 330 Mt. Rushmore Rd, Custer, SD 57730, or at 605-673-4853. Dated: March 13, 2008. Dennis Jaeger, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest. [FR Doc. E8-5611 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service North San Juan Sheep and Goat EIS AGENCY: Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: This NEPA analysis began as an environmental assessment in 2006, then as Interdisciplinary Team discussions took place, it was recognized that completion of an environmental impact statement

(EIS)would be more appropriate. The project is analyzing the action to continue to permit livestock (domestic sheep and goats) grazing within the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments Analysis Area (hereinafter referred to as the Analysis Area) under an Adaptive Management strategy. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by 30 days from the date of this notice. The draft environmental impact statement is expected December 31, 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected February 28, 2009. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Mr. Kelly Garcia, Team Leader, Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, 15571 CR T.5, LaJara, CO 81140. Electronic mail (e-mail with subject, North San Juan comments) may be sent to *comments-rocky-mountain.rio-grande-conejos-peak@fs.fed.us* and a FAX may be sent to

(719)274-6301. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Same as above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Analysis area contains the Willow Mtn. Sheep and Goat (S&G) Allotment, Cornwall Mtn. S&G Allotment, Marble Mtn. S&G Allotment, Campo-Bonito S&G Allotments, Cropsy-Summit S&G Allotments, Elwood S&G Allotment, Treasure S&G Allotment, West Vega S&G Allotment, East Vega S&G Allotment, Upper Adams S&G Allotment and the North Fork-Middle Fork S&G Allotments. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this action is to provide forage for permitted domestic livestock grazing in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. There is an overall need for greater management flexibility. More specifically, the need for this action is tied to any important resource, social, or economic disparity that may be found when comparing the existing condition in the Analysis Area to the Forest Plan desired conditions, as determined by the interdisciplinary team

(IDT)and authorized officer on a site-specific basis. Proposed Action The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing within the North San Juan Sheep and Goats allotments analysis area, under an Adaptive Management strategy that would ensure meeting or moving toward the Rio Grande National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and project-specific desired conditions. This proposal also generates the need to develop new allotment management plans (AMPs). Responsible Official The responsible official is the District Ranger, Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, 15571 County Road T.5, La Jara, CO 81140. Nature of Decision To Be Made This EIS will disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. A separate Record of Decision (ROD), signed by the responsible official, will explain the management and environmental reasons for selecting an alternative to be implemented. The ROD will disclose the rationale for choosing the selected alternative; discuss the rationale for rejecting other alternatives; and disclose how the decision responds to the relevant issues. The decision that the responsible official will make in the Record of Decision is whether or not to authorize some level of livestock grazing on all, part, or none of the Analysis Area given considerations of Forest Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives, and public input. If the decision is made to authorize some level of livestock grazing, the management framework will be described (including standards, guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) so that desired condition objectives are met or that movement occurs toward those objectives in an acceptable timeframe. Scoping Process The Rio Grande National Forest invited public comment and participation regarding this project through the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), public notice in the Valley Courier (January 21, 2006)—the newspaper of record and a scoping letter sent to potentially concerned public, tribal governments, State and other Federal agencies, (January 19, 2006). Comments received in these previous scoping efforts will be retained and considered in this EIS. An additional comment period will be provided during scoping for this EIS in the form of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), public notice in the Valley Courier—the newspaper of record, and letters sent to potentially concerned public, tribal governments, State and other Federal agencies. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest Service invites written comments on the proposed action, including any issues to consider, as well as any concerns relevant to the analysis. In order to be most useful, scoping comments should be received within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Intent. Comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public inspection. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law, but persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Comments and FS responses will be addressed and contained in the Final EIS. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: March 11, 2008. Larry R. Velarde, Acting District Ranger. [FR Doc. E8-5742 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on April 4, 2008, at the Aspen Room, Lake Tahoe Community College, One College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary. DATES: The meeting will be held April 4, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Aspen Room, Lake Tahoe Community College, One College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150,

(530)543-2773. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include:

(1)Final recommendation for the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) Round 9 Capital projects; and,

(2)Public Hearing. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the Secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above. Dated: March 13, 2008. Gina Thompson, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-5612 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel will meet in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is to provide recommendations to the Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, on which forest restoration grant proposals submitted in response to the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Request For Proposals best meet the objectives of the Community Forest Restoration Act (Title VI, Pub. L. No. 106-393). DATES: The meeting will be held April 21-25, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. on Monday, April 21 and ending at approximately 4 p.m. on Friday, April 25. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the MCM Elegante Hotel, 2020 Menaul NE, Albuquerque, NM 87107, Tel. 505-884-2511. Written comments should be sent to Walter Dunn, at the Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *wdunn@fs.fed.us* , or via facsimile to Walter Dunn at

(505)842-3165. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, or during the Panel meeting at the MCM Elegante Hotel, 2020 Menaul NE, Albuquerque, NM 87107, Tel. 505-884-2511. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Dunn, Designated Federal Official, at

(505)842-3425, or Melissa Zaksek, at

(505)842-3289, Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Panel discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Panel members. However, project proponents may respond to questions of clarification from Panel members or Forest Service staff. Persons who wish to bring Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant proposal review matters to the attention of the Panel may file written statements with the Panel staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who submitted written statements prior to the public input sessions will have the opportunity to address the Panel at those sessions. Dated: March 13, 2008. Faye L. Krueger, Deputy Regional Forester. [FR Doc. E8-5610 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Nonprofit Agency Recordkeeping Requirements AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (The Committee) is submitting the collection of information listed below to OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice solicits comments on that collection of information. DATES: The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, your comments should be received by OMB by April 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to

(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response: “Comment: 3037-0005 Nonprofit Agency Responsibilities.” Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Yandik, Information Management Specialist, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259; phone

(703)603-2147; fax

(703)603-0655; or e-mail *rulescomment@abilityone.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The Committee is submitting a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information for nonprofit agency responsibilities related to recordkeeping. The Committee is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Federal agencies 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 number for this collection of information is 3037-0005. The Javits-Wagner-O'Day

(JWOD)Act of 1971 (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) is the authorizing legislation for the AbilityOne Program. (The name of the JWOD Program was changed to the AbilityOne Program on November 28, 2006, **Federal Register** Volume 71, Number 227, Page 68492-68494). The AbilityOne Program creates jobs and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities. Its primary means of doing so is by requiring Government agencies to purchase selected products and services from nonprofit agencies employing such individuals. The JWOD Act, through the AbilityOne Program, is administered by the Committee. Two national, independent organizations, National Industries for the Blind

(NIB)and NISH, help State and private nonprofit agencies participate in the AbilityOne Program. The implementing regulations for the JWOD Act, which are located at 41 CFR Chapter 51, detail the recordkeeping requirements imposed on nonprofit agencies participating in the AbilityOne Program. Section 51-2.4 of the regulations describes the criteria that the Committee must consider when adding a product or service to its Procurement List. One of these criteria is that a proposed addition must demonstrate a potential to generate employment for people who are blind or severely disabled. The Committee decided that evidence that employment will be generated for those individuals consists of recordkeeping that tracks direct labor and revenues for products or services sold through an AbilityOne Program contract. This recordkeeping can be done on each individual AbilityOne project or by product or service family. In addition, Section 51-4.3 of the regulations requires that nonprofit agencies keep records on direct labor hours performed by each worker and keep an individual record or file for each blind or severely disabled individual documenting that individual's disability and capabilities for competitive employment. The records that nonprofit agencies must keep in accordance with Section 51-4.3 of the regulations constitute the bulk of the hour burden associated with this OMB control number. On December 21, 2007, the Committee published in the **Federal Register** (Volume 72, Number 245, Pages 72665-72666) a notice requesting public comment on these recordkeeping requirements for 60 days, ending February 19, 2008. By that date, the Committee received comments from 44 respondents with a total of 75 comments. Seven comments were received opposing the request by indicating that this is a new recordkeeping requirement. There is nothing new in the Committee's request. The Committee did make a change in its recordkeeping requirements in 2002 to add recordkeeping of the direct labor hours and sales for AbilityOne projects on at least a product or service family basis. This change was approved by OMB and was renewed in 2005. There is no change to the recordkeeping requirements that the Committee is requesting OMB to approve again. Eight comments were received questioning the necessity of the recordkeeping requirement and if it has any practical utility. The JWOD Act requires that 75% of the direct labor of all work done at a participating nonprofit agency be done by people who are blind or severely disabled. A number of these comments also stated that this requirement does nothing to increase jobs for people with disabilities. This recordkeeping requirement is to ensure that those nonprofit agencies participating in the AbilityOne Program employ people who meet the Act's definitions. This requirement does not involve any reporting requirements by nonprofits, only that the nonprofits keep records that can be used to document their compliance with the requirements of the Act. The requirement to keep records on the direct labor hours of AbilityOne projects is to ensure that the projects are suitable to remain on the Committee's Procurement List. Without this recordkeeping requirement, the Committee would have no way of verifying that those nonprofits that participate in the AbilityOne Program were meeting the requirements of the JWOD Act. Thirty-eight of the comments referred to the accuracy of the Committee's burden estimate. The comments included estimates of the actual burden for the recordkeeping requirement that ranged from 25 minutes per person who is blind or severely disabled to 35.6 hours per person who is blind or severely disabled. The Committee has used a burden estimate of 5 hours per agency since 2002 and before that, 3 hours per agency since at least 1992, and has not received any prior comments as to its accuracy. However, after review, the Committee agrees that 5 hours per agency is incorrect and that the burden is much higher. The range of burden estimates is a result of the many differences between individual nonprofit agencies and a misunderstanding of the recordkeeping requirement being considered. Many of the burden estimates identified in the comments included tasks that are required to meet other requirements, such as those of the Department of Labor, or would be performed by the nonprofit agency even if they were not in the AbilityOne Program. Based on an analysis of the information contained in the comments and discussions with several other nonprofit agencies during the comment period, the Committee believes that a reasonable burden estimate is 2.5 hours per person that is blind or severely disabled. Currently, there are over 600 nonprofit agencies participating in the AbilityOne Program with employee numbers ranging from less than 10 to more than 2,000. The average number of people who are blind or severely disabled at participating nonprofit agencies was 218 in fiscal year 2007; therefore, the current recordkeeping burden will be estimated at 550 hours annually per nonprofit agency. The Committee recognizes that the burden will be higher for some nonprofit agencies based on their size, types of disabilities served, and whether or not they provide rehabilitation functions. However, based on the information submitted, the Committee believes that, on average, 550 hours per nonprofit agency is a reasonable burden estimate of those tasks imposed directly by this recordkeeping requirement. Sixteen comments were received with suggestions on minimizing the burden. These included making changes to the JWOD Act, adhering to the Act as promulgated and intended by Congress, abolishing the Committee, deleting requirements from the Committee regulations, not requiring annual evaluations on some disabilities, and that the Committee include the cost of meeting the recordkeeping requirements in the price of products and services on the Procurement List. The Committee has reviewed its regulations and believes that its current regulations are in keeping with its administration of the JWOD Act, and those recommendations that would require a change to the Act itself are, therefore, beyond the scope of the Committee's information collection authority. One commenter questioned the necessity for requiring annual evaluations of all people with severe disabilities. This issue had previously been addressed by the Committee and determined that the requirement exists. Five comments were received that do not fit within the four areas about which the Committee requested comments. One commenter requested that the Committee's request be denied; one discussed the difficulties involved with meeting the requirements of different Federal and State requirements; one requested that the Committee seriously consider the comments from all nonprofit agencies; one commented that this request was perpetuating the inefficiencies which hamper the AbilityOne Program; and one comment was that the Committee had made substantive and material modifications to collection requirements after approval by OMB. The Committee believes that this recordkeeping requirement is critical for the Committee to determine if nonprofit agencies are in compliance with the JWOD Act. There has been no substantive or material modification to collection requirements since 2002, and those made in 2002 were approved by OMB in 2002 and renewed in 2005. The Committee's responsibility to administer the Act requires that certain information be available to them to ensure that the purposes of the Act are met. Reasonable requirements by participating nonprofit agencies will permit the Committee to gather data required to report the results to the President and to Congress. Dated: March 18, 2008. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E8-5768 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products and a service previously furnished by such agencies. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions: On January 18 and January 25, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 3450; 4519) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List: Products: Paper, Copying, Xerographic—Convenience Pack NSN: 7530-00-NIB-0814—Reamless NSN: 7530-00-NIB-0826—Ream Wrapped NPA: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Coverage: A—List for the total Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY SKILCRAFT Wide Angle Broom NSN: M.R. 1041 NPA: L.C. Industries For The Blind, Inc., Durham, NC Coverage: C—List for the requirements of the Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Fort Lee, VA Services: Service Type/Location: Base Supply Center, Fort Irwin, CA NPA: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: Department of the Army, National Training Center Acquisition Command, Fort Irwin, CA Service Type/Location: Custodial Services, Border Patrol Station, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 135 Trippany Road, Massena, NY NPA: St. Lawrence County Chapter, NYSARC, Canton, NY Contracting Activity: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Service Type/Location: Food Service Attendant, Naval Station Mayport (Basewide), Mayport, FL NPA: Goodwill Industries of North Florida (GINFL) Services, Inc., Jacksonville, FL Contracting Activity: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center—Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL Service Type/Location: Grounds Maintenance, Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC NPA: Employment Source, Inc., Fayetteville, NC Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Agency, Fort Jackson, SC Service Type/Location: Grounds Maintenance, Marine Corps Air Station, New River, Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson, Jacksonville, NC NPA: Coastal Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc., Jacksonville, NC Contracting Activity: Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic, Camp Lejeune, NC Service Type/Location: Mail Support Services, Bureau of Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV NPA: ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA Contracting Activity: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, Parkersburg, WV Service Type/Location: Mailroom Operations, Internal Revenue Service, 300 E 8th Street & 9430 Research Blvd, Austin, TX NPA: Austin Task, Inc., Austin, TX NPA: ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA (PRIME CONTRACTOR) Contracting Activity: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Headquarters, Oxon Hill, MD Deletions: On January 25, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 4519) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List: Products: Aloud Digital Audio Labeling System NSN: 6515-00-NIB-0226 NPA: Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs National Acquisition Center, Hines, IL PRC Deck Recoating System NSN: 8010-00-NIB-0012 NPA: Alphapointe Association for the Blind, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Bremerton, WA Service: Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial, Social Security Administration Building, 2700 N. Knoxville Avenue, Peoria, IL NPA: Community Workshop and Training Center, Inc., Peoria, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Region 5, Springfield, IL Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E8-5767 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions ACTION: Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a product and services previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must be Received on or Before:* April 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail: *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Addition If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Product USCG Service/Name Tapes NSN: 8455-00-NIB-0016—Name Tapes. NSN: 8455-00-NIB-0017—Service Tapes. NPA: Lions Industries for the Blind, Inc., Kinston, NC. Coverage: C—List for the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard, Woodbine, NJ. Contracting Activity: U.S. Coast Guard, Uniform Distribution Center, Woodbine, NJ. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Product Hydration On-the-Move System NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0071—Bravo Woodland. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0072—Bravo Desert. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0073—Bravo Black. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0074—Delta Woodland. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0075—Delta Desert. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0076—Delta Black. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0077—Alpha Woodland. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0092—Warrior Woodland. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0093—Warrior Desert. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0094—Warrior Black. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0095—Sierra Woodland. NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0096—Sierra Desert. NPA: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Services Service Type/Location: Custodial Services, Social Security Administration, 2401 Lind Street, Quincy, IL. NPA: Transitions of Western Illinois, Inc., Quincy, IL. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Region 5, Chicago, IL. Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial Services, U.S. Federal Building and Post Office, Wenatchee, WA. NPA: Northwest Center, Seattle, WA. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Region 10. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E8-5766 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Action Affecting Export Privileges; Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky Six Ltd., Blue Airways, and Mahan Airways In the Matter of: Balli Group PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Balli Aviation, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Balli Holdings, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Vahid Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Hassan Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky One Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky Two Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky Three Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky Four Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky Five Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Sky Six Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; Blue Airways, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan, Armenia; Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Respondents Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), has requested that I issue an Order temporarily denying the export privileges under the EAR of: 1 The EAR is currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2007). The EAR are issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive presidential notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”).

(1)Balli Group PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(2)Balli Aviation, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(3)Balli Holdings, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(4)Vahid Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(5)Hassan Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(6)Blue Sky One Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(7)Blue Sky Two Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(8)Blue Sky Three Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(9)Blue Sky Four Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(10)Blue Sky Five Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(11)Blue Sky Six Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH.

(12)Blue Airways, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan, Armenia.

(13)Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Respondents”) for 180 days. In its request, BIS has presented evidence that Respondents knowingly engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by reexporting three U.S. origin aircraft to Iran and that Respondents are preparing to reexport three additional U.S. origin aircraft to Iran without the U.S. Government authorization required by Section 746.7 of the EAR. Additionally, Respondents have made false statements to BIS regarding the ultimate destination and end-user of the aircraft, and have failed to comply with a BIS order to return three aircraft to the U.S. False statements made to BIS directly or indirectly constitute violations of the EAR. Specifically, BIS has produced evidence that in or about 2006 the Balli Group PLC, a United Kingdom company, and Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., and Blue Sky Three Ltd., all of which fall under the same parent corporation, Balli Holdings, acquired three U.S. origin aircraft, items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.b. Respondents allege Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd. and Blue Sky Three Ltd., are used as investment vehicles that each own one aircraft for long term leases to airlines. Respondents have stated to BIS that the aircraft were leased to Blue Airways, located in Armenia, and have not and would not be subleased or otherwise reexported to Mahan Air or any other Iranian entity. Multiple open sources contradict these statements and show that the aircraft, identifiable by serial number and tail number, are now controlled and/or operated by Mahan Airways, an Iranian company. No U.S. Government authorization was obtained for the reexport of these three aircraft. Further, BIS's investigation has revealed that Respondents are attempting to divert three additional U.S. origin aircraft of the same type to Mahan Airways. The aircraft are currently located outside the United States and are owned by Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd. and Blue Sky Six Ltd. No U.S. Government authorization has been obtained for the reexport of these three aircraft to Iran. When questioned by BIS, Respondents claimed that the aircraft are not destined for Mahan Airways or any other Iranian entity. On February 22, 2008, BIS ordered the redelivery of these three additional aircraft to the United States in accordance with Section 758.8(b) of the EAR. The Respondents have not complied with this order and have indicated that they will not cooperate. Respondents' failure to obey this order is a violation of the EAR and is further evidence that an imminent violation is likely to occur absent the issuance of a TDO. I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that the Respondents have knowingly violated the EAR and that such violations are significant, deliberate, covert and likely to occur again absent the issuance of a TDO. I also find that BIS has produced evidence demonstrating that additional violations are imminent in time as well. As such, a TDO is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the Respondents in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR. Accordingly, I find that a TDO naming Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky Six Ltd., Blue Airways, and Mahan Airways as Respondents is necessary, in the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. This Order is issued on an *ex parte* basis without a hearing based upon BIS's showing of an imminent violation. *It is therefore ordered:* *First,* that the Respondents, BALLI GROUP PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BALLI AVIATION, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BALLI HOLDINGS, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; VAHID ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; HASSAN ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY ONE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY TWO LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY THREE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY FOUR LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY FIVE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY SIX LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE AIRWAYS, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan, Armenia; and MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR. *Second,* that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of any Denied Person any item subject to the EAR; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by any Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby any Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from any Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from any Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by any Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by any Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. *Third,* that after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to any of the Respondents by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order. *Fourth,* that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order. A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and shall be published in the **Federal Register** . This Order is effective upon date of publication in the **Federal Register** and shall remain in effect for 180 days. Entered this 17th day of March, 2008. Darryl W. Jackson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-5758 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-836] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 23, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-5287 and

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 23, 2007, the Department published *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part* , 72 FR 65701 (November 23, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ), in the **Federal Register** . The administrative review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On December 26, 2007, we received a case brief from Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), producer and importer of the subject merchandise. On January 3, 2008, we received a rebuttal brief from Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic producer and interested party. No hearing was requested. We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:

(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and

(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy

(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:

(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,

(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and

(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:

(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;

(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;

(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);

(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;

(6)ball bearing steels;

(7)tool steels; and

(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Rescission of Administrative Review in Part In the *Preliminary Results* , we explained that DSEC Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSEC), reported that it had no shipments of subject merchandise subject to this review and that our review of information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)supported DSEC's claim. Additionally, we stated that we would rescind the review with respect to DSEC if we continued to find that DSEC did not have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 65702. Because we have not received any information indicating that DSEC had any shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to DSEC. Use of Adverse Facts Available We determined in the *Preliminary Results* that, because TC Steel failed to provide any information to the Department within the meaning of section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we must rely entirely on facts available. We determined further that, because TC Steel failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, in accordance with 776(b) of the Act the use of an adverse inference is warranted. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 65702. Because we have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* which affects our analysis of the use of facts available for TC Steel, we continue to assign the highest product-specific margin, 32.70 percent, which we have calculated in this review based on the data reported by a respondent. As we stated in the *Preliminary Results* , we selected this rate because we have never reviewed TC Steel in a prior segment of this proceeding and we do not have any additional information about this company. Moreover, this rate is sufficiently high as to reasonably assure that TC Steel does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. Finally, given that this information was reported to the Department in the instant segment of the proceeding, there is no basis to doubt this information's reliability and relevance as applied in this segment to TC Steel. See generally the SAA at 870 (discussing the need to corroborate information used as facts available when that information was reported to the Department in a prior segment of an AD/CVD proceeding). Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated March 14, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit, main Department building, Room 1117 and accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index* . html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we revised the product-comparison section of the margin-calculation program for DSM. This revision is discussed in the Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We also corrected a ministerial error involving the currency conversion for inventory carrying costs. Specifically, we converted the variable used for this cost from Korean won to U.S. dollars, but in the *Preliminary Results* we neglected to use the converted variable in our calculations. The correction of this ministerial error had no impact on the dumping margin. See the Final Analysis Memorandum for DSM dated March 14, 2008, for more detailed information on these changes. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 1.97 TC Steel 32.70 Assessment Rates Upon issuance of these final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for DSM, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for these final results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by DSM for which DSM did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of DSM-produced merchandise at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* . Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish TC Steel's dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 32.70 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or exported by TC Steel. The Department will issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of these final results of review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise;

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 0.98 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation, 1 adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. 2 These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. 1 See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Korea* , 64 FR 73196, 73214 (December 29, 1999). 2 See *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 73176, 731818—86 (December 29, 1999), as amended in *Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 6587, 6588 (February 10, 2000). Notification This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues Addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1 Product Matching Comment 2 Offsetting Positive Margins With Negative Margins [FR Doc. E8-5780 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-337-806] Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-5823 or

(202)482-0196, respectively. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Background On August 24, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile, covering the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The Department requires additional time to review and analyze the sales and cost information submitted by the respondent in this administrative review because this review involves complex cost accounting issues. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit (i.e., April 1, 2008). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than July 30, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 17, 2008. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5781 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate

(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 11, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate

(PET)film from India for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate

(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 7708 (February 11, 2008). On February 12, 2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we received timely filed ministerial error allegations from respondent MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ). No other party to the proceeding filed a ministerial error allegation or rebuttal comments. Based on our analysis of the comments, the Department has revised the countervailing duty rate for MTZ. Accordingly, we are amending our final results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0197, or

(202)482-3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Legal Authority The statute governing the correction of ministerial errors directs the Department to establish a procedure for the correction of ministerial errors in determinations within a reasonable period of time. *See* Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act). The regulations promulgated pursuant to the statute provide procedures for the correction of ministerial errors, which allow parties to submit comments and the Department to analyze the comments and correct any ministerial errors by amendment of the determination. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(e). The definition of a ministerial error in a countervailing duty determination is contained in section 751(h) of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that a ministerial error includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the {Secretary} considers ministerial.” Thus, any issue raised by interested parties as a ministerial error which is, in fact, the result of a methodological decision by the Department will not be considered a ministerial error as it would not meet the statutory definition of the term. *See, e.g.* , *Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp.* v. *United States* , 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1304 (CIT 2004). Allegations of Ministerial Errors On February 12, 2008, MTZ timely filed, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), an allegation that the Department made two ministerial errors in its final results of review for MTZ. First, with respect to the Union Territories Central Sales Tax

(CST)program, MTZ alleges that the Department miscalculated the benefit by using the excise tax and the Education CESS, which is an excise duty, on the excise tax paid, instead of the four percent CST not paid. We determine that this is a ministerial error that should be corrected in accordance with 19 CFR 3 5l.224( e) of the Department's regulations. In the benefit calculations for Union Territories CST program, the Department erroneously based the benefit on the excise tax and the Education CESS on the excise tax paid on MTZ's purchases of the input, instead of the four percent CST not paid on the purchases of the input. We have now revised our calculations and calculated the benefit from the Union Territories CST program by calculating four percent of the basic value, as reported to the Department. *See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman Through Dana Mermelstein From Elfi Blum: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations in Final Results of Countervailing Duty Review on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* (March 12, 2008) ( *Ministerial Error Memo* ). Second, MTZ states that, for the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS/DEPB), the Department's calculation memorandum states that the benefits are conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipments for which the DEPS/DEPB credits are earned. MTZ alleges that the Department erred in calculating the benefits by including the value of credits earned on shipments made in 2004 for which the license was issued in 2005. Thus, according to MTZ, the calculation of the rate for this program does not reflect the method stated in the analysis memorandum, and therefore, constitutes a ministerial error. *See Memorandum to The File Through Dana Mermelstein From Elfi Blum: Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from India: Revisions to the Rate Calculations for MTZ Polyfilms Ltd. (MTZ)* (February 4, 2008) ( *Calculation Memo* ). MTZ correctly notes the Department's practice to treat benefits received under DEPSIDEPB as conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment for which the relevant DEPS/DEPB credits are earned because it is at this point where the amount of the benefit in the form of an exemption is known. *See, e.g.* , *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 69 FR 26549 (May 13, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; and *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India* , 64 FR 73131, 73140 (December 29, 1999). However, we disagree with MTZ that our inclusion in the benefit calculation of all the DEPB credits MTZ reported constitutes a ministerial error. In the original questionnaire and in the first and second supplemental questionnaires we asked MTZ to report the date of shipment for all exports on which the benefits from its DEPS/DEPB licenses were earned, and to report such information for all credits earned during the period of review (POR). In MTZ's first supplemental response, MTZ reported the date of all licenses issued within the POR. MTZ also reported all credits earned under those licenses. However, MTZ did not report, for all of these credits, the dates of shipment for the related exports. In the second supplemental response, MTZ provided data for the DEPS/DEPB in the format requested by the Department, but did not include all previously reported licenses. At verification, MTZ noted as a minor correction and clarification, that it had erroneously omitted some licenses from the data set, and provided the verifiers with the information for those licenses identified to the Department. Although MTZ provided shipment data, including date, for some of the licenses at verification, it failed to do so for all of the licenses originally reported to the Department in its first supplemental response. Thus, there remained several licenses for which there was no shipment date reported. Based on the conclusion that MTZ reported its DEPS/DEPB licenses and credits earned as we had instructed, we considered that the credits were earned based on shipments made during the POR. Therefore, we included in our benefit calculations all of the DEPS/DEPB credits earned that MTZ reported. During the course of the administrative review, MTZ failed to identify reported DEPS/DEPB credits that were earned outside the POR. Accordingly, without the information necessary for the Department to identify when the benefit was conferred, we appropriately relied on the date of the license to calculate the benefit. In conclusion, MTZ has not established that the Department made a ministerial error in its calculation of MTZ's DEPS/DEPB benefits. As such, no changes to the calculations for the *Final Results* are warranted. *See Ministerial Error Memo* . In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we have amended the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review of PET Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, for the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, and the respondent MTZ, as noted above. As a result of these corrections, MTZ's rate has changed as shown below. Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy rate MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. 31.25%. Assessment and Cash Deposit Instructions The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by MTZ entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, at 31.25 percent *ad valorem* . We will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of the amended estimated countervailing duties, at this rate, on shipments of the subject merchandise by MTZ entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. We are issuing and publishing these amended final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations. Dated: March 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5601 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG18 Identification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing and/or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for information. SUMMARY: NMFS is seeking information regarding nations whose vessels are engaged in illegal, unregulated, or unreported

(IUU)fishing or engaged in bycatch of protected living marine resources (PLMRs). Such information will be reviewed for the purposes of the identification of nations pursuant to the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act). DATES: Information must be received by April 21, 2008 ADDRESSES: Information must be submitted by mail to NMFS Office of International Affairs, Attn.: Laura Cimo, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by E-mail to: *laura.cimo@noaa.gov* ; or by fax to

(301)713-9106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Cimo, NMFS Office of International Affairs,

(301)713-9090 ext. 132, e-mail address: *laura.cimo@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Moratorium Protection Act, as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, requires the United States to strengthen international fishery management organizations and address IUU fishing and bycatch of PLMRs. Specifically, the Moratorium Protection Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to identify in a biennial report to Congress those nations whose fishing vessels are engaged, or have been engaged at any point during the preceding two years, in IUU fishing. Additionally, the Secretary of Commerce must identify in the biennial report those nations whose fishing vessels are engaged, or have been engaged during the preceding calendar year, in fishing activities either in waters beyond any national jurisdiction that result in bycatch of a PLMR, or beyond the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)that result in bycatch of a PLMR shared by the United States. The first biennial report is due to Congress in January 2009. The Moratorium Protection Act also mandates the development of regulations that set forth the certification procedures for nations identified in the biennial report. NMFS is currently in the process of developing these regulations and will promulgate a final rule prior to issuing the first certification decisions under this statute. The public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule when it is published at a later date. At this time, NMFS is gathering information for the purposes of identifying nations whose fishing vessels are engaged in IUU fishing or fishing practices that result in bycatch of PLMRs for publication in the first biennial report to Congress. NMFS is soliciting from the public, other nations and international organizations, information that is relevant to the identification of nations engaged in IUU activities and bycatch. Sources of information that NMFS may rely upon to make identifications include, but are not limited to: • fishing vessel records; • reports from off-loading facilities, port-side government officials, enforcement agents, military personnel, port inspectors, transshipment vessel workers and fish importers; • government vessel registries; • IUU vessel lists from RFMOs; • RFMO catch documents and statistical document programs; • appropriate catch or trade certification programs; and • statistical data or incident reports from governments, international organizations, or nongovernmental organizations. NMFS will consider all available information, as appropriate, when making a determination whether or not to identify a particular nation in the biennial report to Congress. In its determinations as to whether information is appropriate for use in making identifications, NMFS will consider several criteria, including, but not limited to: • whether the information can be corroborated; • whether multiple sources have been able to provide information in support of an identification; • the methodology used to collect the information; • specificity of the information provided; • susceptibility of the information to falsification and alteration; and • credibility of the individual or organization providing the information. In addition, NMFS poses the following questions: What sources of information should NMFS consider in identifying nations engaged in IUU fishing activities and bycatch of protected living marine resources? Would the above sources of information be useful to NMFS in making such identifications? In order to process and verify all information in a timely manner, NMFS will not be able to consider any information submitted after the close of the information gathering period (see DATES ). Dated: March 17, 2008. Rebecca Lent Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5786 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG38 International Whaling Commission; 60 th Annual Meeting; Nominations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: This notice is a call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation to the June 2008 International Whaling Commission

(IWC)annual meeting. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation. DATES: The IWC is holding its 60 th annual meeting from June 23-27, 2008, in Santiago, Chile. All written nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting must be received by April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting should be addressed to Bill Hogarth, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent via post to: Cheri McCarty, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 Room 12603, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty, 301-713-9090, ext. 183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of discharging the domestic obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. IWC Commissioner has responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. He is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation. Dated: March 17, 2008. Rebecca Lent, Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5783 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG43 Marine Mammals; Photography Permit Application No. 10133 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Zvi Livnat, P.O. Box 1209, Kealakekua, Hawaii 96750, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial/educational photography of spinner dolphins ( *Stenella longirostris* ). DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 10133. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapemen or Brandy Belmas, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of section 104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Section 104(c)(6) provides for photography for educational or commercial purposes involving non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals in the wild. NMFS is currently working on proposed regulations to implement this provision. However, in the meantime, NMFS has received and is processing this request as a “pilot” application for Level B Harassment of non-listed and non-depleted marine mammals for photographic purposes. The applicant has requested a photography permit to film human interactions with spinner dolphins in the coastal waters of Hawaii and Maui. The purpose of the filming is to produce a public service announcement to educate residents and tourists of the Hawaiian Islands about the dangers that swim-with programs pose to the species and illustrate proper dolphin watching techniques. Up to 2,710 dolphins could be harassed annually during aerial and vessel-based close approaches for filming, including underwater filming. Filming would occur from March to October of each year over a period of 4 years. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: March 17, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5784 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XG51 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held April 7, 2008 through April 11, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 4914 Constitution Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70808. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council Thursday, April 10, 2008 *1 p.m.* —The Council meeting will begin with a review of the agenda and minutes. *1:15 p.m.-1:20 p.m.* —The Council will approve the members of the Outreach and Education Committee. *1:20 p.m.-5:30 p.m.* —The Council will receive public testimony on:

(a)exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any;

(b)Final Action on Reef Fish Amendment 30B; and

(c)Generic Aquaculture Amendment. An Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue of concern will be immediately following completion of public testimony for a maximum of 1 hour. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. Friday, April 11, 2008 The Council will review and discuss reports from the previous three days' committee meetings as follows: *8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.* —Reef Fish Management; *10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.* —Ad Hoc Allocation; *10:45 a.m.-11 a.m.* —Shrimp Management; *11 a.m.-11:30 a.m.* —Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum; *11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m.* —Habitat Protection; *11:45 a.m.-12 noon* —Budget/Personnel; *12 noon-12:15 p.m.* —AP Selection; *12:15 p.m.-12:30 p.m.* —SSC Selection; *12:30 p.m.-12:45 p.m.* —Operator Permits; *12:45 p.m.-1 p.m.* —The Council will review regulations for Reef Fish Amendment 30B. *1 p.m.-1:30 p.m.* —The Council will discuss Other Business item. *1:30 p.m.* —The Council will conclude its meeting. Committees Monday, April 7, 2008—ALL CLOSED SESSIONS *1 p.m.-3 p.m.* —CLOSED SESSION—Budget/Personnel Committee will interview and select a Staff Biologist. It will review the Executive Director's position description, rating sheet, and interview questions. *3 p.m.-4:30 p.m.* —CLOSED SESSION—AP Selection Committee will review attendance and appoint new nominees to the AP. *4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.* —CLOSED SESSION—SSC Selection Committee will review attendance and appoint new nominees to the SSC. Tuesday, April 8, 2008 *8 a.m.-12 noon & 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.* —The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to discuss Approval of Public Hearing Draft of Reef Fish Amendment 29; Final Action on Reef Fish Amendment 30B; and a Report of Ad Hoc Recreational Red Snapper AP Meeting. Wednesday, April 9, 2008 *8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.* —The Ad Hoc Allocation Committee will meet to discuss Organizational Issues. *10:30 a.m.-12 noon* —The Operator Permits Committee will discuss an Operator Permits Options Paper. *1:30 p.m.-3 p.m.* —The Shrimp Management Committee will meet to discuss the Shrimp Vessel Effort; AP recommendations; and receive a Report on Electronic Logbooks for Shrimp Fishery. *3 p.m.-5:30 p.m.* —The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Management Committee will meet to discuss the Generic Aquaculture Amendment. *5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.* —Informal Questions and Answer Session. Thursday, April 10, 2008 *8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.* —The Habitat Protection Committee will discuss Proposed Management Action for Flowers Garden Banks and receive an Update on LNG Facilities. *10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.* —CLOSED SESSIONS—Council will discuss AP and SSC Selections and Budget/Personnel Issues. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5778 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XG50 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), its Science and Statistical Committee (SSC), its Ad Hoc Excessive Shares Committee, the Mid-Atlantic section of the Joint Monkfish Committee, its Protected Resources Committee, its Research Set-Aside

(RSA)Committee, its Executive Committee, its Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Committee, its Bycatch Committee, and its Demersal Committee, will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on Monday, April 7, 2008 through Thursday, April 10, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Sheraton Annapolis Hotel, 173 Jennifer Road, Annapolis, MD 21401; telephone:

(410)266-3131. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New St., Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(302)674-2331 ext. 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monday, April 7, 2008 *10 a.m. until 5 p.m.* —The Science and Statistical Committee

(SSC)will meet. Tuesday, April 8, 2008 *9 a.m. until 11 a.m.* —The Ad Hoc Excessive Shares Committee will meet. *11 a.m. until 12 p.m.* —The Mid-Atlantic section of the Joint Monkfish Committee will meet. *1 p.m until 3 p.m.* —The Protected Resources Committee will meet. *3 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.* —The Research Set-Aside

(RSA)Committee will meet. Wednesday, April 9, 2008 *8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.* —The Executive Committee will meet. *9:30 a.m. until 10 a.m.* —The Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Committee will meet. *10 a.m. until 12 p.m.* —The Bycatch Committee will meet. *1:15 p.m. until 3:15 p.m.* —The Council will convene and hold its Business Session. *3:15 p.m. until 4 p.m.* —The Council will receive a presentation regarding New England Council's Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

(HAPC)Initiative. 4 p.m. until 5 p.m.—Monkfish Framework 6 will be reviewed and discussed for the purpose of adoption. Thursday, April 10, 2008 *8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.* —The Demersal Committee will meet. *9:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.* —The Council will convene to review and discuss Amendment 1 to Tilefish for purposes of adoption. *2:30 p.m. until 4 p.m.* —The Council will receive Committee Reports and consider Continuing and New Business. Agenda items by day for the Council's Committees and the Council itself are: *Monday, April 7* —An orientation session for the Science and Statistical Committee will be held to review and discuss the roles of the Council, the SSC, the Monitoring Committees, NMFS, and the Council staff; review the Council's current specification setting procedures and related timing issues; review Annual Catch Limits

(ACL)and Accountability Measures

(AM)requirements established by the Magnuson-Steven Reauthorization Act (MSRA); discuss possible alternative specification procedures; review Terms of Reference

(TOR)for the SSC regarding the annual specification setting process; evaluate and modify current SSC composition by discipline/expertise; review SSC membership appointment protocol and the need to expand the Committee; and, discuss quality assurance/quality control measures for SSC appointment. *Tuesday, April 8* —The Ad Hoc Excessive Shares Committee will review and discuss the meaning/interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

(MSA)National Standard 4, Section 303A(c)(5)(D), Section 303A(c)(9) and develop ideas on and practical application of excessive shares concept. The Mid-Atlantic section of the Joint Monkfish Committee will review and discuss proposed measures in Framework 6, select a preferred alternative, and develop a Committee recommendation for Council consideration and action. The Protected Resources Committee will review recent Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team activities and receive a report on NMFS' Protected Resources Public Outreach Program in the Mid-Atlantic region. The RSA Committee will review a draft policy document regarding the Council's RSA program's operations, review the status of the Mid-Atlantic Council's RSA projects/awards, discuss the need for RSA programmatic reviews, and consider establishing a Mid-Atlantic Research Consortium. *Wednesday, April 9* —The Executive Committee will review discussions and outcomes from the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council

(NRCC)meeting, and review, discuss, and endorse staff's proposed approach to satisfying MSA Section 303(a)(15). The Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Committee will receive an update on commitments made at the most recent Amendment 14 Fishery Management Action Team

(FMAT)meeting. The Bycatch Committee will discuss measures to reduce bycatch mortality in recreational fisheries and review the status of the Council's Bycatch educational outreach initiative. Following these Committee meetings, there will be an awards presentation to recognize the recipient of the 2007 Ricks E Savage Award. The Council will then convene to receive various reports, receive a presentation regarding the New England Council's HAPC Initiative, and review and approve Monkfish Framework 6 for Secretarial submission. *Thursday, April 10* —The Demersal Committee will review the purpose and need of the current list of potential actions to be addressed by Amendment 15. The Council will then review preferences for management alternatives based on public comments received for Tilefish Amendment 1, discuss and adopt preferred alternatives to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)supporting Tilefish Amendment 1, and approve Amendment 1 and associated FEIS for Secretarial submission. The Council will then receive Committee Reports, and consider any continuing or new business. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent t take final actions to address such emergencies. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Bryan,

(302)674-2331 ext 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5773 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XG47 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings. DATES: The Council and its advisory entities will meet April 6-12, 2008. The Council meeting will begin on Monday, April 7, at 12:30 p.m., reconvening each day through Saturday. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 12:30 p.m. until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, April 7 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Seattle Marriott Hotel, 3201 South 176th Street, Seattle, WA 98188; telephone:

(206)241-2000. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone:

(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order: A. Call to Order 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Roll Call 3. Executive Director's Report 4. Approve Agenda B. Open Public Comment Comments on Non-Agenda Items C. Administrative Matters 1. Future Council Meeting Agenda and Workload Planning 2. Legislative Matters 3. Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Implementation 4. Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures D. Enforcement Issues Fishery Enforcement Activity Report E. Habitat Current Habitat Issues F. Salmon Management 1. Tentative Adoption of 2008 Ocean Salmon Management Measures for Analysis 2. Clarify Council Direction on 2008 Management Measures 3. Pacific Salmon Commission Coded-Wire Tag Workgroup Report 4. Methodology Review Process and Preliminary Topic Selection for 2008 5. Final Action on 2008 Management Measures 6. Clarify Final Action on 2008 Management Measures G. Pacific Halibut Management Incidental Catch Regulations for the Salmon Troll and Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries H. Groundfish Management 1. Management Specifications for 2009-2010 Fisheries 2. NMFS Report 3. Fishery Management Plan Amendment 21: Intersector Allocation 4. Consideration of Inseason Adjustments 5. Part I of Management Measures for 2009-2010 Fisheries 6. Part II of Management Measures for 2009-2010 Fisheries 7. Final Consideration of Inseason Adjustments I. Marine Protected Areas 1. Proposals for New Marine Protected Areas in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2. Olympic Coastal National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report J. Highly Migratory Species Management 1. NMFS Report 2. Recommendations to the U.S. Section of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 3. Exempted Fishing Permit for Longline Fishing in the West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone SCHEDULE OF ANCILLARY MEETINGS SUNDAY, April 6, 2008 Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 1 p.m. Groundfish Management Team 1 p.m. Legislative Committee 1 p.m. MONDAY, April 7, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 a.m. Habitat Committee 9 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 4:30 p.m. Tribal Policy Group As necessary Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary TUESDAY, April 8, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Tribal Policy Group As necessary Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary WEDNESDAY, April 9, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary Tribal Policy Group As necessary Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary THURSDAY, April 10, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary Tribal Policy Group As necessary Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary FRIDAY, April 11, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary Tribal Policy Group As necessary Tribal and Washington Technical Group As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary SATURDAY, April 12, 2008 Council Secretariat 7 a.m. California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Enforcement Consultants As necessary Washington State Delegation As necessary Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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 These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5755 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XG49 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Allocation Committee. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Allocation Committee in North Charleston, SC. DATES: The meeting will take place April 8-9, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Southern Wesleyan University, Classroom 6, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 301, North Charleston, SC 29406. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone:

(843)571-4366 or toll free

(866)SAFMC-10; fax:

(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Allocation Committee meeting will take place from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 8, 2008, and from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on April 9, 2008. The Committee will continue to work on alternatives for consideration in the Council's draft Comprehensive Allocation Amendment. The amendment addresses allocations between recreational and commercial fishing sectors. The amendment currently includes alternatives to determine allocations based on

(1)Landings data from the National Marine Fisheries Service or Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program,

(2)Catch data from stock assessments (including discard mortalily),

(3)the Council's Judgement on Fairness and Equity, and

(4)detailed economic and social analysis. The Committee will receive a report on social projects/data collection completed or planned for the South Atlantic region, an overview of previous management actions and how reductions in harvest were applied to each sector, and a presentation on the applicability of certain economic models that may prove useful for helping to determine allocations for species managed by the Council. 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 these meetings. 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 Accomodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meetings. Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5779 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF77 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings and hearings. SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 140th meeting to consider and take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region. DATES: The 140th Council meeting and public hearings will be held on March 17-18, 2008 in Guam and March 20-21, 2008 in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). For specific times and the agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: The 140th Council meeting and public hearings will be held at the Guam Hilton, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, Guam, 96913 ; telephone: 671-646-1835; and the Fiesta Resort and SPA Saipan, P.O. Box 501029, Saipan, MP, 96950; telephone: 670-234-6418. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: 808-522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council will hear recommendations from other Council advisory groups. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The Council will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Schedule and Agenda for Council Standing Committee Meetings Monday, March 17, 2008 Standing Committee Meetings 1. 7:00 a.m.—9:30 a.m. Executive and Budget Standing Committee 2. 9:30 a.m.—11:30 a.m. Pelagics Ecosystem and International Fisheries Standing Committee 3. 9:30 a.m.—11:30 a.m. Program Planning Standing Committee The agenda during the full Council meeting will include the items listed here. Schedule and Agenda for Council Meeting 12:30 p.m.—5:00 p.m. Monday, March 17, 2008 1. Opening Ceremony 2. Introductions 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of 139th Meeting Minutes 5. Agency Reports A. NMFS 1. Pacific Islands Regional Office

(PIRO)2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) B. NOAA General Counsel C. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) D. Enforcement 1. United States Coast Guard

(USCG)2. NOAA Office for Law Enforcement

(OLE)3. Status of Violations 6. Guest Speaker 9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7. Mariana Archipelago 1-Guam A. Isla Informe (Island Area Reports) B. Enforcement Issues C. Action Items 1. Guam Purse-seine Closed Area 2. Community Development Plan

(CDP)Regulatory Amendment to Allow Future CDPs D. Community Issues 1. Military Expansion 2. Transshipment Issues E. Education and Outreach Initiatives F. Marianas Fishery Ecosystem Plan

(FEP)Advisory Panel Recommendations G. Marianas FEP Plan Team Recommendations H. Marianas FEP Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee

(REAC)Recommendations I. Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)Recommendations J. Public Hearing K. Council Discussion and Action 8. Hawaii Archipelago and Pacific Remote Island Areas

(PRIA)A. Moku Pepa (Island Area Reports) B. Enforcement Issues C. Update on Status of Main Hawaiian Islands

(MHI)Bottomfish Management and Monitoring 1. Data Collection, Processing and Analysis a. Catch Reports b. Dealer Reports c. Delinquencies 2. Review Annual Data by Month for Last Three Years 3. Federal Regulations 4. State of Hawaii Rules and Regulations 5. Report on Economic Performance D. Action Items 1. MHI Bottomfish Risk Analysis E. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

(NWHI)Buyout F. Community Issues 1. Seascape Initiatives G. Local, National, & International Education and Outreach Initiatives H. SSC Recommendations I. Public Comment J. Council Discussion and Action 9. Protected Species A. Status of Protected Species Program B. Update on Endangered Species Act

(ESA)Consultations C. Loggerhead Petition D. Albatross Petition E. Observer Program Report on American Samoa and Hawaii 2007 Longline Fisheries F. Public Comment G. Council Discussion and Action 10. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items 9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. Thursday, March 20, 2008 11. Opening Ceremony 12. Introductions 13. Marianas Archipelago 2-CNMI A. Arongo Flaeey (Island Area Reports) B. Enforcement Issues C. Action Items 1. CNMI Purse-seine Closed Area 2. CNMI Longline Closed Area D. Community Issues 1. Military Expansion 2. CNMI Monument E. Education and Outreach Initiatives F. Marianas FEP Advisory Panel Recommendations G. Marianas FEP Plan Team Recommendations H. Marianas FEP REAC Recommendations I. SSC Recommendations J. Public Hearing K. Council Discussion and Action 14. American Samoa Archipelago A. Motu Repote (Island Area Reports) B. Enforcement Issues C. Action Items 1. American Samoa Purse-seine Closed Area 2. American Samoa Longline Program Modifications 3. American Samoa Marine Conservation Plan

(MCP)D. Community Issues E. Education and Outreach Initiatives F. SSC Recommendations G. Public Hearing H. Council Discussion and Action 9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. Friday, March 21, 2008 15. Pelagic and International Fisheries A. Action Items 1. Hawaii Swordfish Fishery Effort 2. Squid Permits B. International Fisheries 1. Fourth International Fishers Forum

(IFF4)2. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) a. Report on WCPFC 4 b. Commissioners c. Advisory Committee d. Implementing Regulations 3. Northwest Pacific Bottomfishing Agreement 4. South Pacific Regional Fishery Management Organization

(RFMO)5. US Commissioners Meeting to Tuna RFMOs 6. Climate Impacts on Oceanic Top Predators (CLIOTOP) C. Secretariat for the Pacific Community

(SPC)report on Insular Fishing in the Pacific D. Pacific Pelagic Advisory Panel Recommendations E. Pacific Pelagic Plan Team Recommendations F. Marianas FEP REAC Recommendations G. SSC Recommendations H. Standing Committee Recommendations I. Public Hearing J. Council Discussion and Action 16. Program Planning and Research A. Magnuson Stevens Reauthorization Act

(MSRA)Implementation 1. Annual Catch Limits

(ACLs)2. Council Five-Year Research Priorities 3. Status of Marine Recreational Information Program

(MRIP)4. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)Coordination 5. SSC, Peer Review, Stipends 6. Proposed Revisions to the Exempted Fishing Permit

(EFP)Process B. Update on Status of Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)Actions 1. CNMI Bottomfish Logbooks 2. Barter/Trade Issues C. Potential Permit Fees D. Status of MCPs E. Western Pacific Cooperative Research Priorities F. Legislative Report G. SSC Recommendations H. Standing Committee Recommendations I. Public Hearing J. Council Discussion and Action 17. Administrative Matters & Budget A. Financial Reports B. Administrative Reports C. Standard Operating Procedures and Protocols

(SOPP)Review D. Meetings and Workshops E. Council Family Changes F. Standing Committee Recommendations G. Public Comment H. Council Discussion and Action 18. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items 19. Other Business Special Accomodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1062 Filed 3-18-08; 3:31 pm]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents

U.S. Code