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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-25 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

75,431 words·~343 min read·/register/2008/03/25/08-1074

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 58 Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0353; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-101-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively do a post-flight check (owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate checking for residual heat in the angle-of-attack
(AOA)probes or an appropriately-rated mechanic doing a maintenance manual operational test of the heat of the AOA probes) after every flight and replace or modify (upload software) the stall warning AOA transmitters. This proposed AD results from reports of the potential for unannunciated loss of the heating function in the left-hand
(LH)and right-hand
(RH)stall warning AOA transmitters of Model 390 airplanes. We are proposing this AD to correct potentially inadequate stall warning with loss of stick pusher function. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas 67291; telephone:
(800)429-5372 or
(316)676-3140. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4139; fax:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-0353; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-101-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports of the potential for unannunciated loss of the heating function in the LH/RH stall warning AOA transmitters of Model 390 airplanes. The current AOA transmitter software may not always annunciate certain failure modes of the probe or case heating circuits. This condition, if not corrected, could result in potentially inadequate stall warning with loss of stick pusher function. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3787, issued: May 2007; and Raytheon Aircraft Company Temporary Change to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual P/N 390-590001-0003CTC7, issued: March 15, 2007. The service information describes procedures for the replacement/modification of the stall warning AOA transmitters. The airplane flight manual
(AFM)describes procedures for doing a post-flight check. This post-flight check can be either the pilot checking for residual heat in the AOA probes as part of the shutdown procedure or, alternatively, having the AOA probe heat operational test maintenance manual procedure done by an appropriately-rated mechanic. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require a repetitive post-flight check for residual heat in the AOA probes or a maintenance manual operational test of the heat of the AOA probes after every flight and replace or modify (upload software) the stall warning AOA transmitters. Replacement or modification (upload software) of the stall warning AOA transmitters terminates the repetitive requirement to do the post-flight action. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 152 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to incorporate and remove the temporary change to the AFM. Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 0.5 work-hour × $80 per hour = $40 Not Applicable $40 We estimate that the proposed post-flight residual heat check requires about 3 minutes to do. We estimate the following costs to do 10 of the proposed post-flight residual heat checks. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would have this post-flight residual heat check, or how many times this will need to be performed before the terminating action is done: Labor cost to do 10 post-flight residual heat checks Parts cost Total cost per airplane 0.5 work-hour × $80 per hour = $40 Not Applicable $40 We estimate the following costs to do the proposed maintenance manual operational test of the heat of the AOA probes. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would have this operational test, or how many times this will need to be performed before the terminating action is done: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 0.5 work-hour × $80 per hour = $40 Not Applicable $40 We estimate the following costs to do any proposed upload of software to the AOA transmitters. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would have this modification: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 Not Applicable $320 We estimate the following costs to do any proposed replacement of 2 stall warning AOA transmitters. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would have this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 2 work-hours × $80 per hour = $160 $18,600 $18,760 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Hawker Beechcraft Corporation:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0353; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-101-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by May 27, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 390 airplanes, serial numbers RB-4 through RB-204, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of the potential for unannunciated loss of the heating function in the left-hand
(LH)and right-hand
(RH)stall warning angle-of-attack
(AOA)transmitters of Model 390 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to correct potentially inadequate stall warning with loss of stick pusher function. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Incorporate Raytheon Aircraft Company Temporary Change to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual P/N 390-590001-0003CTC7, issued: March 15, 2007, into the airplane flight manual (AFM). Within 15 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of the AD or within 30 days after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first Not Applicable.
(2)After every flight do the following:
(i)Do a post-flight check for residual heat in the AOA probes. CAUTION: TO PREVENT POSSIBLE BURNS, USE EXTREME CAUTION TOUCHING HEATED AREAS. TO CHECK HEATING AND AVOID BURNS, HOLD HAND NEAR HEATED AREA OR MOVE HAND GRADUALLY FROM AMBIENT AREA TOWARD HEATED AREA UNTIL WARMTH CAN BE FELT. If you do not feel heat in the AOA probes, then do paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD; or
(ii)Do a post-flight maintenance manual operational test of the heat of the AOA probes. If the AOA probe fails the operational test, replace the AOA probe. Within 15 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD or within 30 days after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. Completion of paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this AD terminates the required repetitive post-flight check of this AD
(A)*For the post-flight check for residual heat in the AOA probes:* Follow AFM Temporary Change P/N 390-590001-0003CTC7, issued: March 15, 2007. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do this post-flight check required by paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(B)*For the post-flight maintenance manual operational test of the heat of the AOA probes:* Follow the procedures of the maintenance manual to do the operational test of the heat of the AOA probes required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD. The maintenance manual operational test must be done by an appropriately-rated mechanic.
(C)*For AOA probe replacement:* Follow Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3787, issued: May 2007.
(3)Replace or modify (upload software) the stall warning AOA transmitters by doing one of the following:
(i)Upload new software Kit No. 123-3436 (Field Software Upload SLZ8060-3,-4) to the AOA transmitters; or
(ii)Replace any part number (P/N) SLZ8060-3 and/or P/N SLZ8060-4 AOA transmitters with new P/N SLZ8060-5 AOA transmitters. Within 250 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Completion of either paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this AD terminates the required repetitive post-flight check of this AD Follow Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3787, issued: May 2007.
(4)Remove Raytheon Aircraft Company Temporary Change to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual P/N 390-590001-0003CTC7, issued: March 15, 2007, from the AFM. Before further flight after doing the actions required by paragraph (e)(3)(i) or paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this AD Follow Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3787, issued: May 2007.
(5)Do not install any P/N SLZ8060-3 or P/N SLZ8060-4 AOA transmitter that does not have the new upgraded software required by paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD Not Applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4139; fax:
(316)946-4107. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas 67291; telephone:
(800)429-5372 or
(316)676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 19, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5959 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0342; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-305-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During planned maintenance visit on one A320 aircraft, a cross connection of the fire extinguishing circuit system was identified. In case of fire, this cross connection will activate (discharge) the wrong forward or aft cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottle. Failure to activate the correct bottle when required is classified as potentially catastrophic. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0342; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-305-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0249, dated September 24, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During planned maintenance visit on one A320 aircraft, a cross connection of the fire extinguishing circuit system was identified. In case of fire, this cross connection will activate (discharge) the wrong forward or aft cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottle. Failure to activate the correct bottle when required is classified as potentially catastrophic. For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection and check of the cargo firing circuit continuity to confirm the correct connection of the dedicated wires between the discharge pushbutton switches and the relevant cargo bottle. Corrective action includes modifying the wiring connection on plug 1505VC-A. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-26A1068, Revision 01, dated July 19, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 679 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $325,920, or $480 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0342; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-305-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 24, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models; all serial numbers which have received an original French standard airworthiness certificate or original French export certificate of airworthiness prior to February 28, 2007, and have been fitted with a cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottle installed in production, or in service by an Airbus Service Bulletin; except airplanes on which Airbus
(MRBR)Maintenance Review Board Report Task 26.23.00/03 or 26.23.00/07 has been performed. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 26: Fire Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During planned maintenance visit on one A320 aircraft, a cross connection of the fire extinguishing circuit system was identified. In case of fire, this cross connection will activate (discharge) the wrong forward or aft cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottle. Failure to activate the correct bottle when required is classified as potentially catastrophic. For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection and check of the cargo firing circuit continuity to confirm the correct connection of the dedicated wires between the discharge pushbutton switches and the relevant cargo bottle. Corrective action includes modifying the wiring connection on plug 1505VC-A. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, perform the inspection and continuity check of the cargo firing circuit and, before next flight, do applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-26A1068, Revision 01, dated July 19, 2007. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-26A1068, dated March 19, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. Accomplishing Airbus MRBR Task 26.23.00/03 or 26.23.00/07 is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0249, dated September 24, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-26A1068, Revision 01, dated July 19, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 14, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-6051 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0356; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-042-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts have a certain marking, inspecting affected bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly, and replacing all hardware if the pre-load is incorrect. For airplanes on which the pre-load is correct, the existing AD requires doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles and replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel nuts. The existing AD also requires replacement of all hardware for certain affected barrel nuts that do not have cracking, which would end the repetitive inspections for those airplanes. The existing AD also provides an optional replacement for all affected barrel nuts. This proposed AD would require replacement of all affected barrel nuts. This proposed AD results from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7324; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0356; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-042-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On February 7, 2008, we issued AD 2008-04-02, amendment 39-15374 (73 FR 8187, February 13, 2008), for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. That AD requires inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts have a certain marking, inspecting affected bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly, and replacing all hardware if the pre-load is incorrect. For airplanes on which the pre-load is correct, that AD requires doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles and replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel nuts. That AD also requires replacement of all hardware for certain affected barrel nuts that do not have cracking, which would end the repetitive inspections for those airplanes. That AD also provides an optional replacement for all affected barrel nuts. That AD resulted from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2008-04-02 explains that we consider the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking to require the replacement of all hardware for all barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA)has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2008-04-02 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require replacement of all affected barrel nuts. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 48 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2008-04-02 and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $11,520, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Replacement of the hardware of a barrel nut, if required, will take about 12 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $800 per airplane. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of a replacement to be $1,760 per barrel nut. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-15374 (73 FR 8187, February 13, 2008) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0356; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-042-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 24, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2008-04-02. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4176 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-04-02 Inspections and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 50 flight hours after February 13, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-04-02), inspect all barrel nuts, part number DSC228-16, to determine if the barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(1)If no barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, no further actions are required by this paragraph.
(2)If any barrel nut is found that is identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, before further flight, inspect the inboard and outboard bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(i)If the pre-load is incorrect (i.e., the ring can be rotated), before further flight, replace all hardware at that location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(ii)If the pre-load is correct, before further flight, do a visual inspection for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(A)If no cracking of the barrel nut and cradle is found, do the applicable action required by paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(B)If no cracking of the barrel nut is found and only cracking of the cradle is found, no action is required by this paragraph provided that the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD is done.
(C)If any cracking of the barrel nut is found, before next flight, replace all hardware only at that location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(g)For any barrel nuts on which no cracking of the barrel nut was found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, do the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD at the compliance time specified in the applicable paragraph.
(1)If four barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware at the left-hand outboard location and the right-hand outboard location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nuts on the outboard locations terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(2)If three barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one affected barrel nut at the outboard location, on the side with two affected barrel nuts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the outboard location terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(3)If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and both nuts are on the same side, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(3)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 500 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one affected barrel nut at the outboard location that has two affected barrel nuts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the outboard location terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nut identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at that location is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(4)If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and are on opposite sides, within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(5)If one barrel nut having no cracking is found, within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at that location is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Alert Service Bulletin
(h)Actions accomplished before February 13, 2008, in accordance with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, dated February 1, 2008, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Actions Accomplished According to Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-18
(i)For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-18, dated January 16, 2008, were accomplished before February 13, 2008 and on which no barrel nuts were found that were identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01: No further action is required by this AD. Parts Installation
(j)As of February 13, 2008, no person may install a barrel nut, part number DSC228-16, identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, on any airplane. New Requirement of This AD Replacement of All Affected Barrel Nuts
(k)For airplanes on which barrel nuts are inspected in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2)(iii), (g)(3)(iii), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD: Within 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace all hardware for all remaining barrel nuts, part number DSC228-16, identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Do the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacement of all hardware for all affected barrel nuts constitutes terminating action for this AD. Special Flight Permit
(l)Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished but concurrence by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is required prior to issuance of the special flight permit. Before using any approved special flight permits, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Special flight permits may be permitted provided that the conditions specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(5) of this AD are met.
(1)Both the right-hand side and left-hand side of the airplane must have at least one barrel nut that is not within the suspect batch (i.e., barrel nut is not identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01). The barrel nuts that are not within the suspect batch must be in good working condition (i.e., no cracking of the barrel nut).
(2)No passengers and no cargo are onboard.
(3)Airplane must operate in fair weather conditions with a low risk of turbulence.
(4)Airplane must operate with reduced airspeed. For further information, contact Bombardier, Q Series 24 Hour Service Customer Response Center, at: Tel: 1-416-375-4000; Fax: 1-416-375-4539; E-mail: *thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com* .
(5)All of the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (1)(2), (l)(3), and (l)(4) of this AD are on a case by case basis. Contact your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO, for assistance. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(n)Canadian emergency airworthiness directive CF-2008-11, dated February 5, 2008. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 17, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-6054 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0092; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Colored and VOR Federal Airways; Alaska AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish four Federal airways in the National Airspace System
(NAS)to replace four non-part 95 routes in Alaska. The conversion of these non-part 95 routes would change uncharted nonregulatory airways requiring special aircrew authorization to Federal Airways, thus adding to the instrument flight rules
(IFR)airway and route infrastructure in Alaska. This proposal would establish three Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range
(VOR)Federal airways, and one Low/Medium Frequency (L/MF) Colored Federal airway. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-0092 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at: *http://www.faa.gov* or the Federal Register's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish three VOR Federal airways, and one colored Federal airway, in Alaska. Presently there are uncharted nonregulatory routes that use the same routing as the proposed Federal airways. These uncharted nonregulatory routes are used daily by commercial and general aviation aircraft. The FAA is proposing to convert these uncharted nonregulatory routes to the Federal airways to add to the IFR route structure in Alaska. The Colored Federal airway would be designated as Amber 6, and would connect the St. Marys NDB with the North River NDB. The first VOR Federal airway would be designated as V-351, and would connect the Port Heiden NDB/DME with the Dillingham VOR/DME. The second Federal airway would be designated as V-619, and would connect the Port Heiden NDB/DME with the Saldo NDB, then to the Dillingham VOR/DME. The third Federal airway would be designated as V-414, and would connect the Gambell NDB/DME with the Kukuliak VOR/DME. Additionally, adoption of these Federal airways would:
(1)Provide pilots with minimum en route altitudes and minimum obstruction clearance altitudes information;
(2)establish controlled airspace thus eliminating some of the commercial IFR operations in uncontrolled airspace; and
(3)improve the management of air traffic operations and thereby enhance safety. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Airways designated as Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Airways designated as VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 in FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft using the described Federal Airways within the State of Alaska and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. Environmental Review The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6009(c) Amber Federal Airways. A-6 [New] St. Marys, AK, NDB; to North River, AK, NDB. Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal Airways. V-351 [New] From Port Heiden, AK, NDB/DME; to Dillingham, AK, VOR/DME. V-619 [New] From Port Heiden, AK, NDB/DME; Saldo, AK, NDB; to Dillingham, AK, VOR/DME. V-414 [New] Gambell, AK, NDB/DME; to Kukuliak, AK, VOR/DME. Issued in Washington, DC, March 17, 2008. Stephen L. Rohring, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. [FR Doc. E8-5922 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-114942-07] RIN 1545-BG73 Disclosure of Return Information in Connection With Written Contracts Among the IRS, Whistleblowers, and Legal Representatives of Whistleblowers 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 is issuing temporary regulations relating to the disclosure of return information, pursuant to section 6103(n), to whistleblowers and their legal representatives. The temporary regulations describe the circumstances by which an officer or employee of the Treasury Department may disclose return information to a whistleblower and, if applicable, the legal representative of the whistleblower, to the extent necessary in connection with a written contract among the IRS, the whistleblower and, if applicable, the legal representative of the whistleblower, for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statutes. The temporary regulations will affect officers and employees of the Treasury Department who disclose return information to whistleblowers, or their legal representatives, in connection with written contracts among the IRS, whistleblowers and, if applicable, their legal representatives, for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statutes. The temporary regulations will also affect any whistleblower, or legal representative of a whistleblower, who receives return information in connection with a written contract among the IRS, the whistleblower and, if applicable, the legal representative of the whistleblower, for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statutes. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-114942-07), 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-114942-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS-REG-114942-07). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helene R. Newsome, 202-622-7950 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 6103(n) relating to the disclosure of return information in connection with written contracts among the IRS, whistleblowers and, if applicable, their legal representatives. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432 (120 Stat. 2958) (the Act), was enacted on December 20, 2006. Section 406 of the Act amends section 7623, concerning the payment of awards to whistleblowers, and establishes a Whistleblower Office within the IRS that has responsibility for the administration of a whistleblower program. The Whistleblower Office, in connection with administering a whistleblower program, will analyze information provided by a whistleblower, and either investigate the matter itself or assign it to the appropriate IRS office for investigation. In analyzing information provided by a whistleblower, or investigating a matter, the Whistleblower Office may determine that it requires the assistance of the whistleblower, or the legal representative of the whistleblower. The legislative history of section 406 of the Act states that “[t]o the extent the disclosure of returns or return information is required [for the whistleblower or his or her legal representative] to render such assistance, the disclosure must be pursuant to an IRS tax administration contract.” Joint Committee of Taxation, *Technical Explanation of H.R. 6408, The “Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,”* as Introduced in the House on December 7, 2006, at 89 (JCX-50-06), December 7, 2006. The legislative history further states that “[i]t is expected that such disclosures will be infrequent and will be made only when the assigned task cannot be properly or timely completed without the return information to be disclosed.” *Id.* Under section 6103(a), returns and return information are confidential unless the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)authorizes disclosure. Section 6103(n) is the authority by which returns and return information may be disclosed pursuant to a tax administration contract. Section 6103(n) authorizes, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary, returns and return information to be disclosed to any person, including any person described in section 7513(a), for purposes of tax administration, to the extent necessary in connection with:
(1)The processing, storage, transmission, and reproduction of returns and return information;
(2)the programming, maintenance, repair, testing, and procurement of equipment; and
(3)the providing of other services. These proposed regulations describe the circumstances, pursuant to section 6103(n), by which officers and employees of the Treasury Department may disclose return information to whistleblowers and, if applicable, their legal representatives, in connection with written contracts for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statutes. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains 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 also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses. Comments and Request for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Helene R. Newsome, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration). 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 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 301.6103(n)-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6103(n); * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.6103(n)-2 is added to read as follows: § 301.6103(n)-2 Disclosure of return information in connection with written contracts among the IRS, whistleblowers, and legal representatives of whistleblowers. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 301.6103(n)-2T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-6040 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2540 RIN 1210-AB26 Model Notice of Multiemployer Plan in Critical Status AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Protection Act of 2006 amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)to require that sponsors of multiemployer defined benefit pension plans that are in, or will be in, endangered or critical status for a plan year provide notice of this status to participants, beneficiaries, the bargaining parties, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the Department of Labor. This document contains a model notice that is intended to facilitate compliance with this notification requirement under ERISA and the Code. DATES: Written comments should be received by the Department of Labor on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1210-AB26, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: e-ORI@dol.gov.* Include “Notice of Critical Status: RIN 1210-AB26” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Model Notice of Critical Status. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* and *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa,* and available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, including any personal information provided. Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Elizabeth Rees, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), U.S. Department of Labor,
(202)693-8500. This is not a toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 202 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (PPA), amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act) by adding section 305, and section 212 of the PPA amended the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)by adding section 432, to provide additional rules for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans in endangered status or critical status. All references to section 305 of ERISA should be read to include section 432 of the Code. Pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4, the Department of the Treasury has interpretive authority over the minimum funding rules of Title I of ERISA, including section 305 of ERISA. 1 1 Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 43 FR 47713 (Oct. 17, 1978). In general, section 305(b)(3)(A) of ERISA provides that not later than the 90th day of each plan year, the actuary of a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the plan sponsor 2 —(i) whether or not the plan is in endangered status for such plan year and whether or not the plan is or will be in critical status for such plan year, and
(ii)in the case of a plan which is in a funding improvement or rehabilitation period, whether or not the plan is making the scheduled progress in meeting the requirements of its funding improvement or rehabilitation plan. 2 Section 3(16)(B)(ii) of ERISA defines the term “plan sponsor” to mean, in the case of a plan established or maintained by two or more employers or jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations, the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of representatives of the parties who establish or maintain the plan. Section 305(b)(3)(D)(i) of ERISA provides that, in any case in which it is certified under section 305(b)(3)(A) that a multiemployer plan is or will be in endangered or critical status for a plan year, the plan sponsor shall, not later than 30 days after the date of the certification, provide notification of the endangered or critical status to participants and beneficiaries, the bargaining parties, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the Secretary of Labor. Section 305(b)(3)(D)(ii) of ERISA provides that if it is certified under section 305(b)(3)(A) that a multiemployer plan is or will be in critical status, the plan sponsor shall include in the notice an explanation of the possibility that—(i) adjustable benefits (as defined in section 305(e)(8) of ERISA) may be reduced, and
(ii)such reductions may apply to participants and beneficiaries whose benefit commencement date is on or after the date such notice is provided for the first plan year in which the plan is in critical status. Section 305(b)(3)(D)(iii) provides that the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe a model notice that a multiemployer plan may use to satisfy the requirements of section 305(b)(3)(D)(ii) of ERISA. The Department consulted with both the PBGC and the IRS in developing the model notice. Other provisions in section 305 define when a plan is in endangered or critical status and what corrective steps must be taken, by when, and by whom. These other provisions are beyond the scope of this notice. The Department of the Treasury and IRS have advised that they are developing guidance on these other provisions. Section 202(f)(1) of the PPA provides, generally, that the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to plan years beginning after 2007, while section 202(f)(3) provides a special rule in the case of plans having certain restored benefits. Section 202(f)(2) of the PPA provides that in any case in which a plan's actuary certifies that it is reasonably expected that a multiemployer plan will be in critical status under section 305(b)(3) of the ERISA, with respect to the first plan year beginning after 2007, the notice required under section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA may be provided at any time after the date of enactment, so long as it is provided on or before the last date for providing the notice under such subparagraph. B. Model Pursuant to section 305(b)(3)(D)(iii) of ERISA, the Department is publishing a model notice, entitled Notice of Critical Status, that a multiemployer plan may use to satisfy the content requirements of section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA. 3 The IRS advises that it will consider the sponsor of a plan in critical status who uses the model notice to notify participants and others of the status of the plan to have satisfied its content obligations under 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code. While the model notice contained in this document specifically relates to plans in critical status, the Department believes that the model may be useful in preparing notices required to be furnished by plans in endangered status. 3 Plans may not use the model notice published herein to satisfy the notice requirement under section 305(e)(8)(C) of ERISA. To discharge the obligation to furnish a notice to the Department of Labor, plans may mail notices to U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. Alternatively, notices may be e-mailed to *criticalstatusnotice@dol.gov.* Critical Status notices received by the Department will be available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, and accessible on EBSA's Web site at: *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa.* To discharge the obligation to furnish a notice to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, plans may mail notices to Multiemployer Program Division, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Suite 930, Washington, DC 20005. Alternatively, notices may be e-mailed to *multiemployerprogram@pbgc.gov.* C. Effective Date This regulation will be effective 60 days after the date of publication of the final regulation in the **Federal Register** . However, because section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and section 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code are effective with respect to plan years beginning after 2007, the Department, as well as Treasury and IRS, will, for purposes of notices required to be furnished prior to the effective date of a final regulation, view utilization of the model notice contained in this document, if accurately completed and timely furnished, as satisfying the notice requirements of section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code. D. Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary The Notice of Critical Status (“Model Notice”) in paragraph
(b)of the proposed regulation will help sponsors of plans in critical status who use the model notice to satisfy their obligations under section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and section 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code. While the Model Notice is not mandatory, the sponsor of a plan in critical status who uses the model notice to notify participants and others of the status of the plan will be considered to have satisfied its obligations under ERISA and the Code. The anticipated benefit of the Model Notice, therefore, is to help plan sponsors fulfill their disclosure responsibilities with greater certainty and less cost. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Department must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule
(1)having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”);
(2)creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this action is not significant under section 3(f) of the Executive Order. Paperwork Reduction Act As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Department is not soliciting comments concerning an information collection request
(ICR)pertaining to the Model Notice. As noted above, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4, the Department of the Treasury has interpretive authority over the minimum funding rules of Title I of ERISA, including section 305 of ERISA, and it has advised that it is developing guidance under this provision. Costs and burdens associated with complying with the notice requirement in section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and section 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code, therefore, will be accounted for in an ICR associated with the Treasury guidance. To the extent the Model Notice includes an ICR, persons are not required to respond to, and generally are not subject to any penalty for failing to comply with, the ICR unless the ICR has a valid OMB control number. 4 4 See 5 CFR 1320.1 through 1320.18. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* )
(RFA)imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.* ) and which are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency certifies that a proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of RFA requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions. The Department has deemed that an employee benefit plan shall be considered a small entity if it has fewer than 100 participants. 5 By this standard, data from the EBSA Private Pension Bulletin 2004 (the latest available information) show that only 67 multiemployer pension plans or 4% of all multiemployer pension plans are small entities. The Department does not consider this to be a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b) of RFA, the Department hereby certifies that the proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further, to the Department's knowledge, there are no federal regulations that might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. 5 The basis for this definition is found in section 104(a)(2) of the Act, which permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants. Congressional Review Act The Model Notice being issued here is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ) and, if finalized, will be transmitted to Congress and the Comptroller General for review. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as well as Executive Order 12875, the proposal does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, and does not impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector, adjusted for inflation. Federalism Statement Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by Federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications because it has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The proposed rule does not alter the fundamental reporting and disclosure requirements of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and as such have no implications for the States or the relationship or distribution of power between the national government and the States. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2540 Employee benefit plans, Pension plans, Multiemployer plans. For the reasons set forth above, the Department proposes to amend Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding Subchapter E to read as follows: Subchapter E—Funding PART 2540—MINIMUM FUNDING STANDARDS Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135 and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3, 2003). Section 2540.305-1 is also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1085(b)(3)(D)(iii). § 2540.305-1 Model Notice of Critical Status for Multiemployer Plans.
(a)Pursuant to section 305(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act), paragraph
(b)of this section provides a model notice that a multiemployer plan may use to satisfy the content requirements under section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and section 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code. Use of the model notice is not mandatory. However, the plan sponsor of a plan in critical status who uses the model notice to notify participants and others of the status of the plan is considered to have satisfied its content obligations under section 305(b)(3)(D) of ERISA and section 432(b)(3)(D) of the Code.
(b)Model notice: BILLING CODE 4510-29-P EP25MR08.009 EP25MR08.010 EP25MR08.011 Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March, 2008. Bradford P. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E8-5855 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-C DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Parts 223, 228, 261, 292, and 293 RIN 0596-AB98 Locatable Minerals Operations AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the regulations for locatable minerals operations conducted on National Forest System lands. The revised rule would apply to prospecting, exploration, development, mining and processing operations, and reclamation under the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended. The Forest Service invites written comments on this proposed rule. DATES: Comments must be received by May 27, 2008. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this proposal must be received by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Service, USDA, Attn: Director, Minerals and Geology Management
(MGM)Staff, (2810), Mail Stop 1126, Washington, DC 20250-1125; by electronic mail to *36cfr228a@fs.fed.us* ; by fax to
(703)605-1575; or by the electronic process available at Federal eRulemaking portal at *http:// www.regulations.gov* . If comments are sent by electronic mail or by fax, the public is requested not to send duplicate written comments via regular mail. Please confine written comments to issues pertinent to the proposed rule; explain the reasons for any recommended changes; and, where possible, reference the specific wording being addressed. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on the proposed rule in the Office of the Director, MGM Staff, 5th Floor, Rosslyn Plaza Central, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia, on business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call ahead at
(703)605-4646 to facilitate entry into the building. Comments concerning the information collection requirements contained in this action should reference OMB No. 0596-New, the docket number, date, and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments should be sent to the address listed in the above paragraph. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Doran, Minerals and Geology Management Staff,
(208)373-4132. 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 Daylight Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Need for Proposed Rule Locatable mineral operations on National Forest System
(NFS)lands have been regulated under the rules now at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, since 1974. Under these rules, the Forest Service requires operators proposing to conduct such operations to file with the agency a notice of intent, or a plan of operation, or to amend a plan of operation, as appropriate, whenever the proposed mineral operations might or would likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources. The regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, apply to all prospecting, exploration, and mining operations, whether within or outside the boundaries of a mining claim, conducted under the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended. These regulations were originally promulgated in 1974 as 36 CFR part 252, and were based on the Forest Service's authority under the Organic Administration Act of 1897. The rules were redesignated as 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, in 1981. In 2005, a final rule clarifying when a plan of operations is required (§ 228.4(a)) also was adopted. However, the regulations have not been significantly revised since 1974. The Forest Service recognizes that prospectors and miners have a statutory right, not a mere privilege, under the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, the Surface Resources Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. 611-615 (sometimes referred to as the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 or as Public Law 167), and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, to go upon certain National Forest System lands for the purposes of locatable mineral exploration, development, and production. The Forest Service may not unreasonably restrict the exercise of that right. Under the revised regulation, Forest Service administrators would at all times apply the test of reasonableness, in that the regulations and their administration cannot extend beyond what is needed to preserve and protect the National Forests from needless surface resource damage. Particular consideration would be given to the economics of operations, the stage of the operations, along with other factors in applying the test of reasonableness. The regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, have served the Forest Service fairly well in bonding and otherwise administering exploration, mining, and processing operations on National Forest System lands. However, since 1974, several inefficiencies and problems associated with these regulations have become apparent and field managers are asking that the regulations be revised and updated. This proposed rule would implement recommendations contained in the 1999 National Research Council
(NRC)publication “Hard Rock Mining on Federal Lands.” This publication resulted when Congress asked the NRC to assess the adequacy of the regulatory framework for locatable mineral operations on Federal lands. In September 1999, the NRC published its conclusions and recommendations. Although the report concluded that the overall regulatory structure for locatable mineral operations on Federal lands is effective, the report recommended revision of several aspects of the Forest Service's regulations. Some of the concerns identified by the NRC are the same concerns the Forest Service has about the existing regulations, specifically, revising the regulations to improve the process for modifying and suspending injurious operations and adjusting reclamation bonds. The report also recommended major changes in the way the Forest Service approves exploratory operations causing less than 5 acres of surface resource disturbance. In response to this recommendation, the Forest Service proposes to adopt regulations similar to the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM)regulations governing notice level operations set forth in 43 CFR subpart 3809. The Forest Service contacted representatives of the mining industry about its effort to revise 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. The Forest Service briefed those representatives as to what the agency then saw as its six main concerns with its current locatable mineral operations. These were:
(a)New provisions that essentially formalize the current process for, reviewing and approving proposed plans of operations;
(b)Streamlining the process for approving short-term, low impact operations;
(c)New provisions that improve the process and criteria for modification of an approved plan of operations;
(d)Providing additional detail with respect to the process the Forest Service uses to inspect operations and to remedy the operator's or the operations' noncompliance with applicable requirements;
(e)A new provision that explains the Forest Service's and the operator's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act in connection with the review and approval of proposed plans of operations; and
(f)Providing additional detail with respect to the process the Forest Service uses to review and adjust reclamation bonds to ensure that those bonds cover the full cost of reclaiming National Forest System lands. Description of Substantive Proposed Changes by Section PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER Section 223.14 Where Timber May Be Cut Section 223.14(d) would be amended to add a citation to 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, to permit certain cutting of timber on a mining claim pursuant to a bonded notice as well as a plan of operations, and to otherwise reflect 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, as it would be revised by this proposed rule. PART 228—MINERALS Subpart A—Locatable Minerals Section 228.3 Definitions Eleven new terms would be added to the definitions section. Definitions of the terms “occupancy,” “permanent structure”, and “residence” would be set forth in § 228.3 to provide consistent interpretations for the public and for Forest Service personnel. These definitions would help reduce confusion about the propriety of proposed occupancy and residence on National Forest System lands in connection with locatable mineral operations, part of which has resulted from imprecise language in some Federal court decisions concerning such occupancy and residence. The three new definitions also would make the Forest Service regulations more consistent with the BLM Occupancy and Use regulations for Locatable minerals, 43 CFR subpart 3715. In addition, these definitions would be consistent with amendments to 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, proposed by this proposed rule. The term “reasonably incident” would be defined to clarify that, by law, mineral operators are restricted to using only reasonable methods of surface disturbance that are appropriate to their stage of operations regardless of the validity of any mining claim on which the operations take place. This clarification is warranted by case law (such as *United States* v. *Richardson* , 599 F. 2d 290 (1979); cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1014 (1980)) and the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612). Reasonable and necessary uses of the National Forest System lands must employ sound and accepted practices to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. These uses also must employ sound, accepted operational methods appropriate for the applicable stage of mining operations, including prospecting, exploration, production (mining and processing), or reclamation. The Forest Service General Technical Report INT-35, *Anatomy of a Mine, from Prospect to Production* (section 10-7), describes and gives examples of the reasonable stages of a mining operation. The proposed term “reclamation” would be redefined to include seasonal and interim measures and long-term treatment after mineral operations have ceased. The term “reclamation bond” would be included to clarify that interest earning escrow accounts may be used to cover the costs of long-term reclamation measures. The term “significant disturbance of surface resources” would be defined at § 228.3(n) of the proposed rule to provide general criteria for evaluating the significance of the disturbance of surface resources. However, as discussed in a portion of the June 6, 2005, **Federal Register** notice for the final rule amending 36 CFR 228.4(a) (70 FR 32713) quoted below, it is impossible to define this term definitively given the variability of National Forest System lands. “Questions and Answers developed by the Forest Service when the 1974 rule was originally adopted explained that a definition cannot be given that would apply to all lands subject to these regulations. Disturbance by a particular type of operation on flat ground covered by sagebrush, for example, might not be considered significant. But that same sort of operation in a high alpine meadow or near a stream could cause highly significant surface resource disturbance. The determination of what is significant thus depends on a case-by-case evaluation of proposed operations and the kinds of lands and other surface resources involved. In general, operations using mechanized earthmoving equipment would be expected to cause significant disturbance. Pick and shovel operations normally would not. Nor would explosives used underground, unless caving to the surface could be expected. Use of explosives on the surface would generally be considered to cause significant disturbance. Almost without exception, road and trail construction and tree clearing operations would cause significant surface disturbance. The Department continues to believe that a universal definition of the term ‘significant disturbance’ cannot be established for NFS lands. The lands within the NFS subject to the United States mining laws stretch from Alaska on the north, the Mississippi River on the east, the border with Mexico on the south, and the Pacific Ocean on the west. NFS lands within that large area occur in widely diverse climates, hydrogeologic conditions, landforms, and vegetative types. Due to the great variability of NFS ecosystems, identical operations could cause significant disturbance in one situation and insignificant disturbance in another. However, the record for the 1974 rulemaking at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, does identify tests that are of use in deciding whether proposed disturbance of NFS resources constitutes ‘significant disturbance’ for purposes of that rule. A March 28, 1974, letter from Forest Service Chief John McGuire to Senator Ted Stevens in response to Senator Stevens' comments on the rule proposed in 1973 explains that ‘significant disturbance’ refers to operations 'for which reclamation upon completion of [that operation] could reasonably be required,' and to operations that could cause impacts on NFS resources that reasonably can be prevented or mitigated.” Nonetheless, locatable mineral operations that fall within the criteria set forth in proposed § 228.3(n) would be judged as likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources absent unusual circumstances. It also should be understood that an operation not meeting these criteria might nonetheless be likely to cause “significant disturbance of surface resources” given the nature of the lands and surface resources that would be affected by proposed operations. Thus, even when proposed operations would not be judged as likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources under the general criteria set forth in § 228.3(n), individualized evaluation of proposed operations might reveal that those operations indeed would be likely to cause “significant disturbance of surface resources.” The **Federal Register** notice for the final rule amending 36 CFR § 228.4(a) further notes that the March 28, 1974, letter from Forest Service Chief John McGuire “also emphatically makes the point that the Forest Service's locatable mineral regulations do not use the term ‘significant' in the same manner as that term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act.” It continues to be necessary to distinguish between “significant” disturbance of National Forest System surface resources and “significant” effects on the quality of the human environment. The Forest Service does not interpret a determination that locatable mineral operations are likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources as an automatic invocation of Section 102(2)
(C)of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, thus requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement (or an environmental assessment). This was never intended when what is now 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, was originally promulgated nor is it intended now. As the **Federal Register** notice for the final rule amending 36 CFR 228.4(a) additionally observed, “Judicial decisions rendered in the 30 years since the rule at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A was promulgated also give context to the meaning of the term ‘significant disturbance [of surface resources].’ For example, it is well established that the construction or maintenance of structures, such as cabins, mill buildings, showers, tool sheds, and outhouses on NFS lands, constitutes a significant disturbance of NFS resources. *United States* v. *Brunskill* , 792 F.2d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 1986); *United States* v. *Burnett* , 750 F. Supp. 1029, 1035 (D. Idaho 1990).” These decisions demonstrate the erroneousness of equating a “significant” disturbance of National Forest System surface resources and a “significant” effect on the quality of the human environment. It is extremely unlikely that the maintenance, or even the construction, of such structures standing alone would require preparation of either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment unless the National Forest System lands at issue possess some noteworthy status such as being part of a proclaimed wilderness or the designated habitat for a threatened or an endangered species. Of course, some operations that would be likely to cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources also would be likely to cause significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Thus, some few, by no means all, proposed operations would be expected to require preparation of environmental impact statements. More frequently, but not uniformly or even regularly, proposed operations that would be likely to cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources would trigger preparation of an environmental assessment, which might or might not be the basis for a Finding of No Significant Impact. (Whenever an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement would be required, it would be prepared by the Forest Service.) The Forest Service requests comments on the adequacy of the proposed definition of “significant disturbance of surface resources” and its discussion set forth above in drawing the distinction between significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources and significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The proposed term “surface use determination” describes a management tool currently used by the authorized officer to determine if a proposed or ongoing use is reasonably incident. The inquiry would consist of an examination and a report completed by a certified mineral examiner that would provide information, conclusions and recommendations to the authorized officer regarding whether a proposed or existing use is logically sequenced, reasonably incident, and otherwise consistent with existing laws and regulations. This proposed rule defines the term “United States mining laws” as the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended and supplemented. This definition reflects the fact that the 1872 Act has since been affected by many other laws. One such law, the Organic Administration Act of 1897, is specifically mentioned for two reasons. It reapplied the United States mining laws to National Forest System lands following their reservation from the public domain and it provides the Forest Service with authority to promulgate these regulations. Another cited law, the Surface Resources Act of 1955, is specifically mentioned because it confirms requirements implicit in the 1872 Act itself. One such requirement is that operators must use reasonable methods of surface disturbance that are appropriate given the warranted stage of locatable mineral operations. Section 228.4 Submission of Notices of Intent To Operate, Bonded Notices, and Plans of Operation This section would be sequentially reorganized to first address operations that would cause little or no disturbance of surface resources, then operations that might cause significant disturbance of surface resources, and finally operations that are likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator would not be required to contact the Forest Service before beginning operations that would cause little or no disturbance of surface resources. An operator would be required to submit a notice of intent to operate before beginning operations that might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Among the operations that would require a notice of intent to operate are those that would involve occupancy of National Forest System lands lasting longer than the local forest stay limit and those involving motorized use of closed roads. Submission of a notice of intent for occupancy exceeding the local forest stay limit would be required because such occupancy along with the related mining operations might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Submission of a notice of intent for motorized use of closed roads similarly would be required because such use along with the related mining operations might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. The notice of intent to operate also would provide an efficient means of evaluating, and when reasonably necessary, regulating occupancy that would exceed local forest stay limits and motorized use of closed roads. An operator would be required to have either a complete bonded notice then in effect or an approved plan of operations then in effect before beginning operations likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources. The criteria for deciding which of these instruments the operator would be required to have would be based upon the duration and the extent of the likely significant disturbance of surface resources. The subset of proposed operations likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources which the rule addresses by means of a complete bonded notice, rather than an approved plan of operations, are those that would neither so disturb more than 5 acres at any point in time nor last more than 2 years. This proposed rule requires an operator to have an approved plan of operations before beginning other operations likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources which do not satisfy both of these criteria. The new bonded notice category of operations that this proposed rule creates is similar to the BLM's “notice” category of operations. However, the bonded notice category of operations would differ in one respect from the BLM's notice category of operations. The BLM restricts use of a notice to exploratory operations. The Forest Service proposes to allow use of a bonded notice for all short-term, low impact operations. As the rule is proposed, it is conceivable that some small mining operations would actually progress to the removal of the valuable locatable mineral deposit and the completion of reclamation under the terms of one or more bonded notices. Section 228.5 Bonded Notice—Completeness Review The proposed rule would provide that upon receipt of a bonded notice, the authorized officer, who usually would be the District Ranger, would perform a completeness review to determine whether the proposed operations satisfy the environmental protection requirements in § 228.9, assuming that the proposed operations do not require an approved plan of operations, and respond to the operator within 15 days. The proposed rule generally provides that when a proposed bonded notice is found to be complete and to meet the requirements of § 228.9, the District Ranger would inform the operator that the notice would take effect upon receipt of an adequate reclamation bond. However, § 228.5(a)(5) of the proposed rule would provide that in cases where an operator has established a pattern of noncompliance with requirements applicable to past or ongoing operations, the operator may be required to have an approved plan of operations rather than a complete bonded notice. A process, which would require the authorized officer to seek the operator's input, would be established by the proposed rule to decide whether it would be appropriate to require the operator to obtain an approved plan of operations. The Forest Service specifically requests comment on the inclusion and formulation of § 228.5(a)(5) in the final rulemaking. Under the proposed rule, once a bonded notice takes effect, the operator would be able to begin the proposed operations. The proposed rule provides that when the authorized officer determines that operations being conducted in accordance with a complete bonded notice are resulting in significant disturbance of surface resources not fully described by that notice, the operator would be required to obtain a new complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations, whichever would be appropriate. Adopting the new bonded notice category of operations would meet recommendations contained in the NRC's 1999 report “Hard Rock Mining on Federal Lands.” One of these recommendations is that: “Forest Service regulations should allow exploration disturbing less than 5 acres to be approved or denied expeditiously, similar to notice-level exploration activities on BLM lands.” (pg. 97). Another of these recommendations is that: “The BLM and the Forest Service should plan for and implement a more timely permitting process, while still protecting the environment.” (pg. 122). Currently, an approved plan of operations is required for operations that would be subject to a bonded notice under the proposed rule. The existing approval process for a plan of operations often takes several months to two years. Adopting the bonded notice category of operations would shorten the Forest Service's review of identical low impact, short-term operations freeing up specialists needed to process more complex proposed plans of operations and to administer locatable mineral operations on the ground. While the bonded notice category of operations would streamline the permitting process for less impactive short-term, operations, the proposed rule also ensures that any adverse impacts that operations conducted under a bonded notice might have on National Forest System lands would be minimized. All operations that would be conducted under a bonded notice would have to meet the environmental protection requirements set forth in § 228.9. All operations that would be conducted under a bonded notice also would have to be properly bonded. Section 228.6 Plan of Operations—Approval The procedures for the Forest Service's review of and response to a proposed plan of operations would be very similar to those that would be applicable to a proposed bonded notice. Section 228.6(h) would include substantially different standards for requiring modification of a plan of operations than those set forth in the current rule. These changes are necessary because the provisions of the current rule governing modification of an approved plan of operations have been interpreted inconsistently. Questions have also been raised as to when incidental changes of operations authorized by the Forest Service rise to the level of requiring modification of the approved plan of operations. The current rule also contains limited and often ineffective criteria for requiring modification of an approved plan of operations. The NRC recognized the existence of such problems and recommended that: “The BLM and the Forest Service should revise their regulations to provide more effective criteria for modifications to plans of operation, where necessary, to protect the federal lands.” (pg. 99). The proposed rule would address the NRC's recommendation by correcting these shortcomings. Currently, 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, contains criteria for requiring modification of a plan of operations that look backward to focus on what should have been “foreseen” when the plan of operations was approved. In this proposed rule, the criteria for requiring modification of a plan of operations allows for a correction of problems manifested after the approval of the plan of operations and would keep approved operations abreast of changed circumstances. These criteria would draw upon those adopted by the Forest Service almost a decade ago in regulations governing locatable mineral operations within the Smith River National Recreation Area, 36 CFR part 292, subpart G. Under the proposed rule, modification of an approved plan of operations might be required to reflect advances in predictive capability, technical capacity, and mining technology. Modification of an approved plan of operations also might be required to address uses of National Forest System land that are no longer, or have become, reasonably incident. The proposed rule also would reflect the Forest Service's conclusion that it is not reasonable for an operator to continue to conduct any aspect of locatable mineral operations that is causing irreparable or unnecessary injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources even if that aspect of the operations was previously approved by the authorized officer. Thus, the proposed rule would allow the authorized officer to require an operator to suspend any aspect of operations that is causing such injury, loss or damage while the process of modifying the approved plan of operations is ongoing. Section 228.6(i) would note the Clean Water Act
(CWA)obligations that an operator or the Forest Service itself must meet in connection with the approval of a plan of operations. In 2006, a Federal District Court held that the Forest Service cannot approve a proposed plan of operations that may result in a discharge to navigable waters until the operator has obtained a proper 401 CWA certification and presented it to the authorized officer unless the certification requirement has been properly waived. The proposed rule would alert operators and authorized officers to the applicability of this requirement. (The Forest Service Manual has also been amended to include direction for complying with the CWA (FSM 2817.23a)). Section 228.8 Inspecting Operations and Remedying Noncompliance The Forest Service has experienced some difficulty in enforcing compliance with the current regulations. A consistent and clearly understood response to noncompliance is needed. The NRC report stated: “* * * the committee is persuaded that more consistent and accessible procedures for deciding when to refer apparent violations to other agencies and the ability to issue reasonable administrative penalties, subject to the appropriate due process, would improve the efficiency of agency operations and enhance the protection of then environment.” (pgs.102-103). This section would list enforcement steps the authorized officer can take if the operator fails to comply with a notice of noncompliance. This proposed rule notes, as is true today, that the authorized officer may initiate a civil action, issue a Violation Notice under 36 CFR part 261, or use the reclamation bond to take all necessary measures to protect the environment specified by the notice of noncompliance. Section 228.9 Environmental Protection Requirements This proposed rule would update and revise the environmental protection requirements applicable to locatable mineral operations. A new paragraph, § 228.9(e), would reference the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This change would be made because some people have asserted that the ESA does not apply to locatable mineral operations given that the ESA is not mentioned in the currently applicable requirements for environmental protection. Some operators also do not understand that the Forest Service may require bond coverage that includes the cost of removing any abandoned equipment or other property from National Forest System lands. Some have argued that since the current regulations do not specifically state that removal of equipment is part of reclamation, the operator cannot be required to post a bond for the removal of that equipment. As in the current rule, a separate section of this proposed rule (§ 228.11) would require removal of structures and equipment upon the cessation of operations. However, to prevent further confusion, a new paragraph, § 228.9(i), would be included in the proposed rule to make it clear that a required element of reclamation is the removal of structures and equipment from National Forest System lands. Section 228.13(c)(1), would govern reclamation bonding and also would specify that the cost of complying with proposed § 228.9(i) would be factored into a reclamation bond's required coverage. This section also would be revised to make the environmental protection requirements applicable to bonded notices as well as plans of operations. Section 228.10 Reasonably Incident Uses This new section would allow an authorized officer to require an operator to cease uses of National Forest System lands that are not reasonably incident to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, development, mining, processing, or reclamation. This proposed rule would establish a process for evaluating the reasonableness of operations or incidental uses, and to initiate a surface use determination. Uses such as occupancy and in particular, residence, would be evaluated under this section to determine whether those uses are necessary based on the nature or stage of ongoing or proposed operations. These proposed requirements and requirements proposed elsewhere in this proposed rule are modeled upon the BLM's parallel rule (43 CFR subpart 3715) governing occupancy and reasonably incident uses and operations on the public lands. Section 228.11 Cessation of Operations This section would be revised to give the authorized officer a clearly stated process and criteria to use when responding to a proposed or actual cessation or temporary closure of operations. The Forest Service has noticed inappropriate characterizations of closures or cessations of operations as “temporary.” These characterizations sometimes appear to be attempts to delay or avoid taking appropriate interim or final actions to clean up and otherwise close and reclaim completed or abandoned operations. These changes would address any such abuse. Section 228.12 Access for Operations This section would be revised to clarify that all access must be reasonable. A clarification also would be added stating that the Forest Service may elect to regulate access on National Forest System lands for associated work on lands patented under the United States mining laws pursuant to 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. The vehicle for regulating such access would be either a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations. Section 228.13 Reclamation Bonds for Bonded Notices and Plans of Operation The revisions in this section would clearly identify the different types of financial instruments that can be used as a reclamation bond. This proposed rule would retain the use of statewide or nationwide blanket bonds while including a new mechanism to insure the adequacy of any blanket bond. The current regulations do not contain an appropriately detailed process for the administration of reclamation bonds, which results in inconsistent administration of such bonds. As it would be revised, this section would lay out a clear process and definitive standards for administering reclamation bonds. This would facilitate consistent administration of reclamation bonds by Forest Service authorized officers. Questions have been raised as to whether the authorized officer has authority to require periodic reviews of reclamation bonds, and to require appropriate adjustments of reclamation bonds based upon those reviews. To forestall such questions in the future, the proposed rule would be expanded to set forth detailed language providing criteria and a process for the authorized officer's review of reclamation bonds. The proposed rule would permit review of a reclamation bond's adequacy whenever the authorized officer believes it is necessary. However, the proposed rule would require the authorized officer to seek input from the operator before requiring any adjustment of the bond. The proposed rule would provide that value should not be attributed to any property that an operator places or creates on National Forest System lands for purposes of determining the cost to fully reclaim such lands in accordance with § 228.13(c). Any other approach would not be reasonable. The operator not only is entitled, but would be required, to remove such property in accordance with § 228.9(i) of the proposed rule. The value of any property impermissibly abandoned on the area of operations also could not be determined in advance. An operator might not own property placed or constructed on National Forest System lands. Even if the operator owned such property initially, ownership of it could pass to another person during the course of the operations voluntarily by sale or involuntarily by bankruptcy. When operations are lengthy, property that was initially valuable may be worth less than the cost to remove it when the operations cease or are concluded. Liability could also be associated with any such abandoned property that the United States would not accept. This proposed rule would require mandatory bonding for all bonded notices as well as all newly approved plans of operation. Under current practice, few, if any, operations requiring an approved plan of operations are authorized today without reclamation bond coverage given serious problems that have arisen with respect to previously approved operations for which a bond was not required. However, approved plans of operations are in effect for which a reclamation bond was not required. This proposed rule would require an operator to furnish a bond complying with the requirements of the proposed rule for all existing operations subject to an approved plan of operations, including those for which a reclamation bond initially was not required. Operators would be given 180 days after the effective date of the final rule to furnish such a bond. The BLM also required bonds for existing operations subject to an approved plan of operations to be brought into compliance with the bonding requirements of its revised 43 CFR subpart 3809 regulations within 180 days of that rule's effective date. As it would be revised, this proposed rule would provide for use of escrow accounts to cover long-term monitoring, maintenance, or treatment measures to prevent or otherwise minimize on-site or off-site damage. The BLM has successfully used this kind of financial instrument to bond such obligations as long-term water treatment (see 43 CFR 3809.556). This proposed rule also would be expanded to set forth specific criteria and a formal process that the authorized officer must use in deciding whether to permit the release of a reclamation bond or to require the replacement or forfeiture of a reclamation bond. The authorized officer also would be obligated to seek the operator's input before requiring the replacement or forfeiture of a reclamation bond. Section 228.14 Operations on Withdrawn or Segregated National Forest System Lands Including National Forest Wilderness The provisions in the current rule governing operations in National Forest Wilderness are reorganized for clarity. Another clarification is made concerning information gathering about any type of mineral as authorized by the Wilderness Act on lands which that Act has withdrawn from appropriation under the United States mining laws. Although the United States mining laws do not govern such information gathering, this proposed rule would make the procedures set forth in this subpart applicable to that work given the similar methods by which such information is gathered. Proposed paragraphs
(f)through
(i)of this section would establish the requirements for conducting locatable mineral operations on all National Forest System lands segregated or withdrawn from the operation of the United States mining laws. National Forest System lands are withdrawn or segregated pursuant to many authorities and there is no logical reason to distinguish between lands segregated or withdrawn from appropriation under one versus another authority. These proposed provisions specify that operations generally are allowable on all National Forest System lands segregated or withdrawn from the mining laws only to the extent that a person has valid existing rights to proceed, regardless of whether the operations may proceed under a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations. Thus, the proposed rule allows the Forest Service to protect genuine valid existing rights (by requiring a determination that such rights exist) while at the same time protecting areas that have been withdrawn or are being proposed to be withdrawn from operation of the mining laws. However, these proposed provisions specify that the Forest Service may allow limited activities before the existence of valid existing rights is established or disproven, including certain limited sampling and limited annual assessment work. Proposed paragraph
(f)of this section would require the Forest Service to prepare a mineral examination report before approving a plan of operations for proposed operations on National Forest System lands withdrawn from the operation of the mining laws. Additionally, this section would grant the Forest Service the discretion to prepare a mineral examination report before confirming that a bonded notice is complete or approving a plan of operations for proposed operations on National Forest System lands that have been segregated under section 204 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714) for consideration of a withdrawal. This section also would provide that when a mineral examination report finds that a mining claim is invalid but the operator declines to alter the proposed operations to avoid the segregated or withdrawn National Forest System lands in question, the Forest Service will request that the BLM promptly initiate contest proceedings to determine the validity of all such mining claims. However, in specified limited circumstances proposed paragraph
(g)would allow the Forest Service to approve a plan of operations before a mineral examination report for a claim located on withdrawn lands has been prepared. Specifically, the Forest Service may allow operations to take samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that were physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation or withdrawal date, whichever is earlier; and to perform any minimum necessary annual assessment work under 43 CFR 3851.1. This section also would permit an operator to conduct the same limited operations on segregated lands under either a bonded notice that the Forest Service has confirmed is complete or a plan of operations that the Forest Service has approved. Proposed paragraph
(h)allows the Forest Service to suspend the time limit the agency would take for final action on a proposed plan of operations until the existence of valid existing rights is finally established or disproven pursuant to paragraph
(f)of this section, whether by virtue of the mineral examination report, a mineral contest, or federal court proceedings. The section also provides for the suspension of the time limit for the Forest Service to confirm that a proposed bonded is complete under identical terms. Proposed paragraph
(i)requires an operator to cease all operations, except required reclamation, when the absence of valid existing rights is finally established pursuant to paragraph
(f)of this section, whether by virtue of the mineral examination report, a mineral contest, or federal court proceedings. Section 228.16 Applicability of This Subpart This section would specify how the revised rule would apply to classes of operations such as approved and ongoing operations, preexisting proposed plans of operation, preexisting unapproved modifications of approved plans, and other preexisting operations. This section would directly parallel the applicability of the BLM's revised 43 CFR subpart 3809 regulations to the same classes of ongoing or proposed locatable mineral operations. PART 261—PROHIBITIONS Section 261.2 Definitions The definition of “operating plans” set forth in this section would be revised to include bonded notices within its scope. A new definition of “residence,” patterned upon the definition of “residence” which would be set forth at 36 CFR part 228.3(m), also would be added to this section. Section 261.10 Occupancy and Use Paragraphs (a),
(b)and
(l)of this section would be revised to apply to bonded notices as well as to plans of operation. This change has no substantive effect. These paragraphs presently apply to operations requiring an approved plan of operations. Operations that would be conducted under a complete bonded notice should the proposed rule be adopted, presently require an approved plan of operations under 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Thus, whether or not the proposed rule is ultimately adopted, the same operations would be subject to these three paragraphs. New paragraphs
(p)and
(q)also would be added to this section. Paragraph
(p)would prohibit the use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations when the operations require such a bonded notice or plan of operations. Paragraph
(q)would prohibit the use of National Forest System land as storage sites without a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations when the operations would require such a bonded notice or an approved plan of operations. PART 292—NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS Subpart D—Sawtooth Natural Recreation Area—Federal Lands Section 292.17 General Provisions This section would be amended to add a citation to 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Subpart G—Smith River National Recreation Area Section 292.63 Plan of Operations—Supplementary Requirements This section would be amended to reflect the revised requirements that would be set forth at proposed 36 CFR part 228.4(f)(1) through (f)(4) and proposed 36 CFR part 228.9. This section also would be revised to employ the same terminology that would be set forth at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. PART 293—WILDERNESS—PRIMITIVE AREAS Section 293.2 Objectives This section would be amended to add a citation to 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Section 293.15 Gathering Information About Resources Other Than Minerals This section would be amended to add a citation to 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Regulatory Certifications Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866, amended by Executive Order 13422, Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this proposed rule is not significant. This proposed rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This proposed rule would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this proposed rule has been considered in light of the Executive Order 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). An initial small entities flexibility assessment has been made and it has been determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by SBRFEA. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Environmental Impacts This proposed rule revises and updates the regulations for locatable mineral operations on the National Forests. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.” This proposed rule clearly falls within this category of actions and no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made simultaneously with the adoption of the final rule. Energy Effects This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], FS announces its intention to request an approval of a new information collection (and recordkeeping requirements—if applicable). Upon OMB approval, this collection will be merged into 0596-0022. *Title:* Proposed Revision of 36 CFR part 228, Subpart A—Locatable Minerals. *OMB Number:* 0596-New. *Expiration Date of Approval:* 3 years from approval date. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Abstract:* The United States General Mining Laws, as amended, govern prospecting for and appropriation of metallic and most nonmetallic minerals on approximately 122 million acres of National Forest set up by proclamation from the public domain. These laws give individuals the right to search for and extract valuable mineral deposits, and secure title to the lands involved. A prospector may locate a mining claim upon the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Recording that claim in the local county courthouse and with the appropriate BLM State Office affords protection to the mining claimant from subsequent locators. A mining claimant is entitled to reasonable access to the claim for further prospecting, mining, or necessary related activities, subject to other applicable laws and regulations. Locatable mineral regulations are specific rules and procedures for use of the surface of National Forest System lands, in connection with mineral operations authorized by the United States mining laws, to minimize adverse environmental impacts to surface resources. The information collection required for: a notice of intent to operate; proposed initial, modified, or supplemental plan of operations; and cessation of operations, is approved and assigned Office of Management and Budget Control
(OMB)No. 0596-0022. The information collection required for a proposed bonded notice in this proposed rule has been submitted to OMB as a new collection. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 100. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses:* 100. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 600 hours. *Comments:* 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. Federalism The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive order 13132, Federalism. The agency has made a preliminary assessment that this proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive order; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Based on comments received on this proposed rule, the agency will consider if any additional consultations will be needed with the State and local governments prior to adopting a final rule. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and, therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required. No Takings Implications This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The agency has not identified any State or local laws or regulations that are in conflict with this proposed regulation or that would impede full implementation of this proposed rule. Nevertheless, in the event that such a conflict were to be identified, the proposed rule, if implemented, would preempt the State or local laws or regulations found to be in conflict. However, in that case,
(1)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and
(2)the Department would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not be required. List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 223 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Forests and forest products, Government contracts, National Forests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 36 CFR Part 228 Environmental protection, Mines, Miners, National Forests, Natural resources, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Public lands-rights-of-way, Reclamation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Wilderness areas. 36 CFR Part 261 Law enforcement, National Forests. 36 CFR Part 292 Mineral resources, Recreation and recreation areas. 36 CFR Part 293 National Forests, Wilderness areas. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the United States Department of Agriculture proposes to amend 36 CFR chapter II to read as follows: PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER 1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority: 90 Stat. 2958, 16 U.S.C. 472a; 98 Stat. 2213, 16 U.S.C. 618, 104 Stat. 714-726, 16 U.S.C. 620-620j, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise paragraph
(d)of § 223.14 to read as follows: § 223.14 Where timber may be cut.
(d)Timber on an unpatented mining claim may be cut by the claimant only for the actual development of the claim or for uses consistent with the purposes for which the claim was entered. Any severance or removal of timber, other than severance or removal to provide clearance, must be in accordance with a complete bonded notice then in effect or an approved plan of operations then in effect as provided by part 228, subpart A of this chapter, and with sound principles of forest management. PART 228—MINERALS 3. Revise the authority citation for part 228 to read as follows: Authority: 30 Stat. 35 and 36, as amended (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, 551); 41 Stat. 437, as amended, sec. 5102(d), 101 Stat. 1330-256 (30 U.S.C. 226); 61 Stat. 681, as amended (30 U.S.C. 601); 61 Stat. 914, as amended (30 U.S.C. 352); 69 Stat. 368, as amended (30 U.S.C. 611); and 94 Stat. 2400. 4. Revise Subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Locatable Minerals Sec. 228.1 Purpose. 228.2 Scope. 228.3 Definitions. 228.4 Submission of notices of intent to operate, bonded notices, and plans of operations. 228.5 Bonded notice—completeness review. 228.6 Plan of operations—approval. 228.7 Availability of information to the public. 228.8 Inspecting operations and remedying noncompliance. 228.9 Environmental protection requirements. 228.10 Reasonably incident uses. 228.11 Cessation of operations. 228.12 Access for operations. 228.13 Reclamation bonds for bonded notices and plans of operation. 228.14 Operations on withdrawn or segregated National Forest System lands including National Forest Wilderness. 228.15 Administrative appeals. 228.16 Applicability of this subpart. Subpart A—Locatable Minerals § 228.1 Purpose. It is the purpose of the regulations in this subpart to set forth rules and procedures under which use of the surface of National Forest System lands for operations authorized by the United States mining laws must be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. The United States mining laws, which confer a statutory right to enter upon certain Federal lands to search for locatable minerals, apply to National Forest System lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the Creative Act of 1891, Sec. 24, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103 (1891), by virtue of the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. 482. It is not the purpose of the regulations in this subpart to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior. § 228.2 Scope.
(a)This subpart applies to operations hereafter conducted on National Forest System lands under the United States mining laws as they affect surface resources on such lands which are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture: *Provided, however,* That any area of National Forest System lands covered by a special act of Congress (16 U.S.C. 482a-482q) is subject to the provisions of this subpart and the provisions of the special act, and in the case of conflict the provisions of the special act will apply.
(b)Certification or other approval issued by State agencies or other Federal agencies of compliance with laws and regulations relating to locatable mining operations the authorized officer determines are similar or parallel to requirements of this subpart will be accepted as compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. § 228.3 Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart the following terms, respectively, mean:
(a)*Authorized officer.* The Forest Service officer to whom authority to review and approve a plan of operations has been delegated.
(b)*Day.* For purposes of computing time periods, the term “day” refers to Mondays through Fridays, beginning the next one of these days after the event from which the time computation period begins to run. However, when the time computation period ends on a day a Federal holiday appointed by the President or the Congress of the United States is observed, the period is extended to the end of the next day not a Federal holiday.
(c)*Minimize.* Limiting operations conducted to those reasonably incident and, where practical, preventing or reducing the adverse impact of reasonably incident operations.
(d)*Mining claim.* Any unpatented mining claim or unpatented mill site authorized by the United States mining laws.
(e)*Occupancy.* Being present on or employing National Forest System lands for any of the following activities or purposes:
(1)The construction, maintenance, placement, protection, repair, retention or use of a residence as defined by § 228.3(m) for any purpose: *Provided, however,* That a temporary structure or a temporary shelter supplying living or sleeping quarters for any person camping in connection with locatable mineral operation is not occupancy unless such camping will exceed any stay limit applicable to the National Forest System lands on which such temporary structure or temporary shelter is situated;
(2)Regular use of any area, whether or not enclosed or covered in any way, for the storage of equipment, machinery, parts, process materials, spent materials, supplies, tools and vehicles;
(3)The construction, maintenance, placement, repair, retention or use of any barrier to access, including but not limited to, enclosures, fences, gates and signs;
(4)Use of a caretaker, guard or watchman to monitor, protect, or safeguard property, objects, workings, facilities, or the public; and
(5)Use of a means of transportation on a road or another access facility the Forest Service has closed to such use.
(f)*Operations.* All functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of locatable mineral resources, reclamation and closure, and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads, other means of access and occupancy, on National Forest System lands subject to the regulations in this subpart, regardless of whether said operations take place within or outside the boundaries of a mining claim.
(g)*Operator.* A person conducting or proposing to conduct operations.
(h)*Permanent structure.* Structures fixed to the ground by any of the various types of foundations, slabs, piers, poles, and other means and structures placed on the ground that can only be moved through disassembly of the structure into its component parts or by techniques commonly used in moving houses. Tents and lean-tos are temporary, not permanent, structures.
(i)*Person.* Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.
(j)*Reasonably incident.* A shorthand reference to the statutory standard “prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto” (30 U.S.C. 612(a)).
(1)Reasonably incident includes those actions or expenditures of labor and resources by a person of ordinary prudence to prospect, explore, define, develop, mine, or beneficiate a valuable locatable mineral deposit, and reclamation of lands affected by such actions or expenditures of labor, using work, activities, functions, practices, facilities, structures, and equipment appropriate to the geological terrain, mineral deposit, and stage of development and reasonably related activities.
(2)Uses not reasonably incident include, but are not limited to, all uses not: Allowed pursuant to the United States mining laws or other applicable laws; necessary or reasonable on National Forest System lands; realistically calculated to lead to the extraction and beneficiation of valuable locatable minerals; required for the applicable stage of prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing operations; warranted given the extent of available information on the mineral deposit; or warranted given the extent, or lack, of ongoing operations.
(k)*Reclamation.* Measures taken to, where practical, prevent or otherwise minimize onsite and off-site damage to the environment and National Forest System surface resources. It includes concurrent, seasonal, interim, and ultimate actions, including, if necessary, monitoring, maintenance and long-term treatment after mineral operations have ceased. These measures must shape, stabilize, revegetate, or otherwise treat lands affected by operations in order to achieve a safe and environmentally stable condition.
(l)*Reclamation bond* . Surety bonds, cash, negotiable securities of the United States, or escrow accounts posted by an operator to cover the full cost of reclaiming National Forest System lands affected by operations conducted subject to a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations.
(m)*Residence* . Any structure or shelter, whether temporary or permanent, including, but not limited to, buildings, buses, cabins, campers, houses, lean-tos, mills, mobile homes, motor homes, pole barns, recreational vehicles, sheds, shops, tents and trailers, which is being used, capable of being used, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, full or part-time, as living or sleeping quarters by any person, including a guard or watchman.
(n)*Significant disturbance of surface resources* . Disturbance of National Forest System surface resources requiring the use of reclamation measures in order to return National Forest System lands and surface resources affected by operations to a safe and environmentally stable condition or influencing materially the administration of National Forest System lands or surface resources affected by operations during their pendency. Significant disturbance of surface resources generally results from operations employing mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, explosives or chemicals; requiring access road construction or reconstruction; requiring construction of buildings, impoundments and other support facilities; occurring within areas of National Forest System lands or waters known to contain Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitats; or occurring within areas of National Forest System lands withdrawn from the operation of the United States mining laws. Significant disturbance of surface resources also generally occurs when operations cause fire, health or safety hazards on National Forest System lands; preclude or restrict other uses of National Forest System surface resources; prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over National Forest System lands; involve residency, other than permitted camping, on National Forest System lands; injure or destroy any scientifically important paleontologic remains or any historical or archaeological structure, resource, or object; or necessitate closing National Forest System lands or facilities to users other than an operator or exempting an operator from closure of National Forest System lands or facilities to other users. An operation that will cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources occasionally may, but often will not, significantly affect the quality of the human environment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
(o)*Surface use determination* . An inquiry conducted by a certified Forest Service Mineral Examiner as to whether specified uses of National Forest System lands are reasonably incident.
(p)*United States mining laws* . A reference to the Mining Law of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21-54), as amended and supplemented by laws including the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 478, 482 & 551) and the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611-614). § 228.4 Submission of notices of intent to operate, bonded notices, and plans of operations.
(a)*Operations not requiring prior notice.*
(1)Except as provided by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section, an operator is not required to give notice to the Forest Service before:
(i)Beginning operations that will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes;
(ii)Beginning prospecting and sampling that will not cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of a mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting mineral specimens using hand tools;
(iii)Marking and monumenting a mining claim;
(iv)Beginning underground operations that will not cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources;
(v)Beginning operations, which in their totality, will not cause disturbance of National Forest System surface resources substantially different than that caused by other National Forest System users who are not required to obtain a special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization from the Forest Service before beginning such use; or
(vi)Beginning operations that will not involve the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources.
(2)Operations involving occupancy of National Forest System lands, as defined by § 228.3(e), are not subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(i)The construction, maintenance, placement, protection, repair, retention or use of a temporary structure or a temporary shelter supplying living or sleeping quarters for any person camping in connection with locatable mineral operation is not occupancy providing that such camping will not exceed any stay limit applicable to the National Forest System lands on which the temporary structure or temporary shelter is situated. Accordingly, prior notice is not required for an operation involving camping which otherwise meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section unless the operation is subject to any of paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (a)(4) of this section.
(ii)An operator proposing to construct, maintain, place, protect, repair, retain or use a permanent structure located on National Forest System lands must submit a proposed plan of operations pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii)Otherwise, an operator proposing to conduct operations involving occupancy of National Forest System lands, including use of a means of transportation on a road or another access facility the Forest Service has closed to such use, must submit of a notice of intent to operate in complaince with paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(6) of this section.
(3)An operator proposing to conduct any operation subject to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section shall submit a proposed bonded notice in compliance with paragraph (c)(3) through (c)(5) of this section.
(4)An operator proposing to conduct any operation subject to paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(B) through (d)(1)(ii)(E) of this section shall submit a proposed plan of operations in compliance with paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section.
(b)*Operations requiring a notice of intent to operate.*
(1)Except as provided by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an operator must submit a notice of intent to operate when the operator proposes to conduct operations that:
(i)Might cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources; or
(ii)Would involve occupancy of National Forest System lands as defined by § 228.3(e), including, but not limited to:
(A)Use of a means of transportation on a road or another access facility the Forest Service has closed to such use; and
(B)Construction, maintenance, placement, protection, repair, retention or use of a residence as defined by § 228.3(m) unless: ( *1* ) The residence is a permanent structure as defined by § 228.3(h) for which the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section; or ( *2* ) The residence is a temporary structure or a temporary shelter supplying living or sleeping quarters for any person camping in connection with locatable mineral operation providing that such camping will not exceed any stay limit applicable to the National Forest System lands on which the temporary structure or temporary shelter is situated. Accordingly, a notice of intent is not required for an operation involving such residence which meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section unless the operation is subject to paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (a)(4) of this section.
(2)An operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to operate if:
(i)The operations may proceed without prior notice pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section.
(ii)The operator elects to submit a proposed bonded notice or a proposed plan of operations instead of a notice of intent to operate;
(iii)The proposed operations are not likely to cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources;
(iv)The operator is required to submit a proposed bonded notice because the proposed operations are subject to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section; or
(v)The operator is required to submit a proposed plan of operations because the proposed operations are subject to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3)A notice of intent to operate must provide information sufficient to identify the proposed area of operations, the nature of the proposed operations, and the proposed mode of transportation and route of access to the area of operations.
(4)The operator must transmit the notice of intent to operate to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area within which the proposed operations will be conducted.
(5)The operator must not begin the operations described by the notice of intent to operate sooner than 15 days after the notice was received by the District Ranger except as provided by paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section.
(6)Within 15 days of receiving a notice of intent to operate, the District Ranger will notify the operator if the proposed operations cannot begin until—
(i)The operator has submitted a proposed bonded notice pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section and the requirements of § 228.5 are satisfied; or
(ii)The operator has submitted a proposed plan of operations pursuant to paragraph
(d)of this section and the requirements of § 228.6 are satisfied.
(c)*Operations requiring a proposed bonded notice.*
(1)Except as provided by paragraph (c)(2) of this section, an operator must submit a proposed bonded notice when the operator proposes to conduct operations that:
(i)Will likely cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources providing that such disturbance will last no longer than two years and will occur on no more than 5 acres of unreclaimed National Forest System lands at any point in time; or
(ii)Will occur partially or wholly on national Forest System lands segregated from appropriation under the United States mining laws providing that the disturbance of National Forest System surface resources the operations will likely cause will last no longer than two years and will occur on no more than 5 acres of unreclaimed National Forest System lands at any point in time.
(2)An operator is not required to submit a proposed bonded notice if:
(i)The operations may proceed without prior notice pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section.
(ii)The operations may proceed under a notice of intent to operate pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section.
(iii)The operator elects to submit a proposed plan of operations instead of a proposed bonded notice; or
(iv)The operator is required to submit a proposed plan of operations because the operations are subject to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3)A proposed bonded notice must contain the information specified by paragraph
(f)of this section as foreseen for the entire operation for the full estimated period of activity.
(4)The operator must transmit the proposed bonded notice to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the lands on which the proposed operations would be conducted.
(5)The operator must not begin the operations described by the proposed bonded notice before the bonded notice has been determined to be complete pursuant to § 228.5(b)(1) and the requirements of § 228.5 are otherwise satisfied.
(d)*Operations requiring a proposed plan of operations.*
(1)An operator must submit a proposed plan of operations when the operator proposes to conduct operations that:
(i)Will likely cause significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources lasting no longer than two years or occurring on more than 5 acres of unreclaimed National Forest System lands at any point in time; or
(ii)Always require an approved plan of operations because those operations:
(A)Will involve the construction, maintenance, placement, protection, repair, retention or use of a permanent structure on National Forest System lands;
(B)Will occur partially or wholly on National Forest System lands withdrawn from appropriation under the United States mining laws, including lands within National Forest Wilderness;
(C)Will occur partially or wholly on National Forest System lands segregateed or withdrawn from appropriation under the United States mining laws, if the disturbance of National Forest System surface resources that the operation will likely cause will last longer than two years or will occur on more than 5 acres of unreclaimed National Forest System lands at any point in time;
(D)Will sever or remove timber on National Forest System lands for purposes other than providing clearance; or
(E)Are subject to § 228.5(a)(5)(iii)(B).
(2)A proposed plan of operations must contain the information specified by paragraph
(f)of this section as foreseen for the entire operation for the full estimated period of activity.
(i)If the development of a plan of operations for an entire operation is not possible when the proposed plan is prepared, the operator must:
(A)File an initial plan of operations describing the proposed operations to the degree reasonably foreseeable then; and
(B)Thereafter, file one or more supplemental plans of operations when the operations the operator proposes to conduct are not approved by the current plan of operations.
(ii)A supplemental plan of operations provided for by paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B) of this section is subject to all provisions set forth in this subpart applicable to an initial plan of operations.
(3)The operator must transmit the proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the lands on which the proposed operations would be conducted.
(4)The operator must not begin the operations described by the proposed plan of operations before the plan of operations has been approved pursuant to § 228.6(c)(1) and the requirements of § 228.6 are otherwise satisfied.
(e)*Demanding a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations.* The District Ranger will notify the operator that the operator must:
(1)Hold a complete bonded notice which is in effect or an approved plan of operations which is in effect, whichever is appropriate, if the District Ranger determines the operator intends to commence or previously began operations that are likely to cause or are causing significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources without a required bonded notice or plan of operations; or
(2)Obtain a new complete bonded notice which has taken effect, or a new, modified or supplemental plan of operations which has taken effect, whichever is appropriate, if significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources which is not fully described by a complete bonded notice currently in effect or which is not approved by a plan of operations currently in effect is likely to occur or is occurring.
(f)*Proposed bonded notice and plan of operations content requirements.* A proposed bonded notice or a proposed plan of operations must include:
(1)The name and legal mailing address of all operators (and all claimants if they are not the operators) and their lessees, assigns, or designees.
(2)A map or sketch showing information sufficient to locate the proposed area of operations on the ground, the location, and, if applicable, the route, of all existing and proposed roads, trails, bridges, landing areas for aircraft, and other access facilities to be used in connection with the operations, and the approximate location and size of areas where National Forest System surface resources will be disturbed.
(3)Information sufficient to describe or identify the type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the proposed mode of transportation to be used, the type and standard of all existing and proposed roads, trails, bridges, landing areas for aircraft, and other access facilities, the proposed period during which the proposed operations will occur, and proposed measures to be taken to meet the environmental protection requirements set forth in § 228.9.
(4)A preliminary estimate of the cost of reclaiming National Forest System lands calculated in accordance with § 228.13(c) but based only upon the reclamation requirements set forth in § 228.9(i) and (k), along with an explanation sufficient to show how the estimate was calculated.
(g)*Collection of information.* The information collection required for: a notice of intent to operate; proposed initial, modified, or supplemental plan of operations; and cessation of operations, is approved and assigned Office of Management and Budget Control
(OMB)No. 0596-0022. The information collection required for a proposed bonded notice has been submitted to OMB as a new collection. § 228.5 Bonded notice—completeness review.
(a)The District Ranger will promptly review a proposed bonded notice submitted in accordance with § 228.4(c)(1) and, as part of that review, consider whether:
(1)The proposed bonded notice satisfies the environmental protection requirements set forth in § 228.9;
(2)The proposed bonded notice adequately minimizes the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed operations on National Forest System surface resources;
(3)The proposed bonded notice includes the information specified by § 228.12(d);
(4)The proposed bonded notice properly estimates the cost of reclaiming all National Forest System lands that would be affected by the proposed operations; and
(5)The operator or any person acting on the operator's behalf has established a pattern of noncompliance with requirements applicable to past or ongoing operations.
(i)If the District Ranger finds such a pattern of noncompliance, the District Ranger may recommend the applicable Forest Supervisor require the operator to submit a proposed plan of operations in lieu of the proposed bonded notice. The District Ranger's recommendation must be accompanied by a statement setting forth in detail the supporting facts and reasons for the recommendation, copies of which will be sent to the operator when they are sent to the Forest Supervisor.
(ii)The operator will have not less than 15 days to respond and show cause why the Forest Supervisor should not require the operator to submit a proposed plan of operations.
(iii)The Forest Supervisor will render a decision on the District Ranger's recommendation within 30 days of receiving the operator's response to the recommendation or the closure of the period for the operator to submit such a response.
(A)If the Forest Supervisor disagrees with the District Ranger's recommendation, the Forest Supervisor will direct the District Ranger to resume prompt review of the proposed bonded notice.
(B)If the Forest Supervisor agrees with the District Ranger's recommendation, the Forest Supervisor will advise the operator the proposed bonded notice will not receive further review and the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations in lieu of the notice if the operator wishes to conduct the proposed operations.
(b)Within 15 days of receipt of a proposed bonded notice, the District Ranger will notify the operator that:
(1)The bonded notice is complete;
(2)The proposed operations do not require a bonded notice;
(3)The proposed operations require an approved plan of operations;
(4)The Forest Service is reviewing the proposed bonded notice, more time is necessary to conclude the review for the reasons specified, and the District Ranger will complete the review within an additional 15 day period: Provided, however, That days during which the area of operations is inaccessible for inspection will not be counted when computing the 15 day period; or
(5)The proposed bonded notice is incomplete identifying the deficiencies the operator must remedy to meet the requirements of this subpart.
(c)If the proposed bonded notice is incomplete and the operator submits additional information in response to a notification pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the District Ranger will repeat the review process set forth in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section as necessary until the District Ranger takes an action specified by paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3)of this section.
(d)When the District Ranger advises the operator in writing that a bonded notice is complete, the operator must furnish the District Ranger a reclamation bond complying with § 228.13(a) through (c). If the District Ranger determines the reclamation bond the operator submitted is consistent with the complete bonded notice and § 228.13(a) through (c), the District Ranger will promptly inform the operator in writing that as of such day the complete bonded notice is in effect and the operations described by the notice may begin. The operator must conduct the operations in compliance with the complete bonded notice and the requirements set forth in this subpart.
(1)A complete bonded notice has a two year term which begins on the bonded notice's effective date.
(2)All operations described by the bonded notice, including reclamation, must be concluded within the two year period specified by paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3)A complete bonded notice may not be extended. If the operator requires additional time to complete operations subject to § 228.4(c), the operator must submit a new bonded notice to the District Ranger in accordance with § 228.4(c)(2) and (3).
(e)An operator must not segment logically related exploratory operations within a particular area by filing a series of proposed bonded notices for the purpose of avoiding the requirement to submit a proposed plan of operations.
(f)The District Ranger may hold a portion of the reclamation bond for a complete bonded notice provided by the operator in accordance with § 228.13(a) through
(c)and paragraph
(d)of this section for monitoring purposes no longer than two years following completion of reclamation. However, the District Ranger will promptly return any portion of the reclamation bond covering reclamation activities not requiring monitoring to the operator in accordance with § 228.13(f)(2).
(g)Holding a complete bonded notice in effect does not relieve the operator from compliance with all other applicable Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387), the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540). § 228.6 Plan of operations—approval.
(a)The District Ranger will promptly acknowledge receipt of a proposed plan of operations submitted in accordance with § 228.4(d)(1) to the operator.
(b)The authorized officer will promptly review a proposed plan of operations. As part of the review, the authorized officer will:
(1)Consider whether the proposed plan of operations satisfies the environmental protection requirements set forth in § 228.9;
(2)Consider whether the proposed plan of operations adequately minimizes the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed operations on National Forest System surface resources;
(3)Consider whether the proposed plan of operations includes the information specified by § 228.12(d);
(4)Consider whether the proposed plan of operations properly estimates the cost of reclaiming all National Forest System lands that would be affected by the proposed operations;
(5)Evaluate the operator's compliance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section; and
(6)Conduct an environmental analysis of the proposed plan of operations and determine whether preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is required.
(i)An initial, supplemental or modified plan of operations occasionally may, but often will not, require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Environmental impacts of proposed operations will vary substantially depending on whether the nature of the operations is exploration, development, or processing, and on the scope of operations (such as size of operations, construction required, length of operations and equipment required), causing varying degrees of disturbance and impacts to vegetative resources, soil, water, air, or wildlife.
(ii)The Forest Service will prepare any required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
(c)Within 30 days of receipt of a proposed plan of operations, the authorized officer will notify the operator that:
(1)The plan of operations is approved;
(2)The proposed operations do not require an approved plan of operations;
(3)The authorized officer is reviewing the proposed plan of operations, more time is necessary to conclude the review for the reasons specified, and the authorized officer will complete the review within an additional 60 day period: *Provided, however,* That days during which the area of operations is inaccessible for inspection will not be counted when computing the 60 day period;
(4)The proposed plan of operations cannot be approved until an environmental assessment has been prepared and, if appropriate, a finding of no significant impact has been made, or a final environmental impact statement has been prepared; or
(5)The proposed plan of operations is inadequate identifying the deficiencies the operator must remedy to meet the requirements of this subpart.
(d)If the proposed plan of operations is inadequate and the operator submits additional information in response to a notification pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the authorized officer will repeat the review process set forth in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section as necessary until the authorized officer takes an action specified by paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.
(e)When the authorized officer advises the operator in writing that the plan of operations is approved, the operator must provide to the authorized officer a reclamation bond complying with § 228.13(a) through (c). If the authorized officer determines the reclamation bond the operator submitted is consistent with the approved plan of operations and § 228.13(a) through (c), the authorized officer will promptly direct the operator to sign the approved plan of operations if the operator has not already done so.
(f)After the requirements of paragraph
(e)of this section have been met, the authorized officer will promptly countersign and date the approved plan of operations and inform the operator in writing the approved plan of operations is in effect and the operations approved by the plan may begin. The operator must conduct the operations in compliance with the approved plan of operations and the requirements set forth in this subpart.
(g)Before an approved plan of operations takes effect, the authorized officer will approve those operations required for timely compliance with Federal and State laws providing such operations will be conducted so as to minimize their adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources.
(h)The authorized officer may require an operator to obtain approval of a modified plan of operations under following procedures.
(1)The authorized officer will not require an operator to submit and obtain approval of a modified plan of operations unless the authorized officer determines that:
(i)As approved, the operations do not adequately minimize adverse impacts;
(ii)As approved, the operations do not, or likely will not, meet the environmental protection requirements specified by § 228.9;
(iii)The approved operations are causing unforeseen significant disturbance of National Forest System surface resources;
(iv)The approved plan of operations must be brought into conformance with applicable federal law or regulation, including newly adopted federal law or regulation;
(v)The approved plan of operations needs to respond to new information not available when the plan was approved; or
(vi)Errors or omissions were made when the plan of operations was approved.
(2)An authorized officer considering whether to require an operator to obtain approval of a modified plan of operations will:
(i)Provide notice to the operator in writing which:
(A)Sets forth the reasons why the authorized officer believes modification of the approved plan of operations is required; and
(B)Gives the operator not less than 30 days to respond and show cause why the authorized officer should not require modification of the approved plan of operations;
(ii)Consider the operator's response and all other information in the administrative record in deciding whether to require modification of the approved plan of operations; and
(iii)Issue a decision stating whether modification of the approved plan of operations is required, and if the decision requires modification of the approved plan of operations, the decision also will:
(A)Explain its basis;
(B)Identify all required modifications to the plan of operations;
(C)Specify the date by which the operator must submit the proposed modified plan of operations; and
(D)Identify any opportunity for the operator to file an administrative appeal of the decision.
(3)A modified plan of operations provided for by introductory text of paragraph
(h)of this section is subject to all provisions set forth in this subpart applicable to an initial plan of operations, except as otherwise provided by § 228.16.
(4)Operations may continue in accordance with the approved plan of operations until a modified plan is approved, unless the authorized officer determines the operations are:
(i)Unnecessarily or unreasonably causing injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources; or
(ii)Causing irreparable injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources; and advises the operator of those measures needed to avoid such damage.
(i)If the operations to be conducted under a plan of operations:
(1)Can reasonably be expected to result in a point source discharge into waters of the United States, the operator may be required to obtain permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) (Clean Water Act sections 402, 404).
(2)Will result in the discharge of dredged or filled materials into waters of the United States, the operator may be required to obtain permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) (Clean Water Act sections 402, 404).
(3)May result in any discharge into the navigable waters, the operator must obtain the certification required by Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) from the appropriate Federal or state entity and present a copy of the certification to the authorized officer.
(i)Pursuant to Clean Water Act section 401, the Forest Service cannot approve a proposed plan of operations until the operator has obtained the required certification and presented it to the authorized officer unless the certification requirement has been waived by the appropriate Federal or State entity.
(ii)If the appropriate Federal or state entity denies a required Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) certification, the Forest Service cannot approve a proposed plan of operations.
(j)Holding an approved plan of operations in effect does not relieve the operator from compliance with all other applicable Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387), the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 *et seq.* ), and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540).
(k)When the operator considers the operations, including reclamation, approved by the plan of operations to have been completed, the operator may notify the authorized officer. If the authorized officer agrees, the authorized officer will advise the operator in writing that the operator's obligations under the plan of operations have been completed and the plan has been closed. § 228.7 Availability of information to the public. Except as provided herein, all information and data submitted by an operator pursuant to the regulations of this subpart is available for examination by the public at the Office of the District Ranger in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR 1.1 through 1.24, and §§ 200.6 through 200.8 of this chapter. Specifically identified information and data submitted by the operator as confidential concerning trade secrets or privileged commercial or financial information will not be available for public examination, except upon a determination made pursuant to the procedures at 7 CFR 1.12, that such information is not exempt by law from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Information and data generally found to be exempt from disclosure that accordingly may be withheld from public examination includes, but is not limited to:
(a)Known or estimated outline of the mineral deposits and their location, attitude, extent, outcrops, and content;
(b)Known or planned location of exploration pits, drill holes, excavations pertaining to location and entry pursuant to the United States mining laws; and
(c)Other commercial information which relates to competitive rights of the operator. § 228.8 Inspecting operations and remedying noncompliance.
(a)Forest Service officers will periodically inspect operations to determine whether an operator is complying with the regulations of this subpart and, if applicable, a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations.
(b)If an operator fails to comply with the regulations of this subpart or, if applicable, a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations and the operator's noncompliance unnecessarily or unreasonably is causing injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources, the authorized officer will serve a notice of noncompliance upon the operator or, if applicable, the operator's designated agent in person or by certified mail. The notice of noncompliance must:
(1)Identify all requirements with which the operator's noncompliance unnecessarily or unreasonably is causing injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources;
(2)Specify the actions which the operator must take to come into compliance with the requirements identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section and to remedy all injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources which resulted from the operator's noncompliance with those requirements; and
(3)Specify one or more dates by which the operator must complete the actions specified pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Generally, an operator will not be given more than 30 days to complete actions specified pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: *Provided, however,* That days on which the authorized officer determines the area of operations is inaccessible will not be included when computing the period the operator is allowed to complete those actions.
(c)The authorized officer will take additional enforcement actions if the operator fails to comply with a notice of noncompliance within the time provided by the notice unless the authorized officer determines there was good cause for the operator's failure to comply. The additional enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(1)Requesting the initiation of a civil action in a United States District Court seeking appropriate relief such as declaratory relief, injunctive relief and monetary damages;
(2)Issuing a Violation Notice citing the operator for violating a prohibition set forth in part 261 of this chapter; and;
(3)Attaching the reclamation bond provided by the operator and using the proceeds to take all necessary measures to complete the actions specified by the notice of noncompliance pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. § 228.9 Environmental protection requirements. The operator must conduct all operations, where practical, so as to minimize the adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. Environmental protection requirements operations must satisfy include, but are not limited to:
(a)*Air quality.* The operator must comply with applicable Federal and State air quality standards, including the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 *et seq.* ).
(b)*Water quality.* The operator must comply with applicable Federal and State water quality standards, including regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ).
(c)*Solid wastes.* The operator must:
(1)Comply with applicable Federal and State standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes as defined by the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 *et seq.* );
(2)Remove from National Forest System lands, dispose of, or treat all non-mine garbage, refuse, or waste to minimize, so far as is practical, its impact upon the environment and National Forest System surface resources; and
(3)Deploy, arrange, dispose of, or treat all tailings and other mine wastes resulting from the operations so as to minimize their adverse impact upon the environment and National Forest System surface resources.
(d)*Scenic values.* The operator must, so far as is practical, harmonize operations with scenic values through such measures as the design and location of operating facilities, including roads and other means of access, vegetative screening of operations, and construction of structures and improvements which blend with the landscape.
(e)*Endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants.* The operator must take all measures required by the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1538) to protect federally listed threatened or endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants and, if applicable, their designated critical habitats.
(f)*Fisheries and wildlife habitat.* In addition to complying with the water quality requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)of this section, the solid waste requirements set forth in paragraph
(c)of this section, and the endangered species requirements set forth in paragraph
(e)of this section, the operator must take all practical measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat that may be affected by the operations.
(g)*Roads.* The operator must construct and maintain all roads so as to assure adequate drainage and, where practical, to prevent or otherwise minimize damage to soil, water, and other resource values. Unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer, when a road is no longer required for the operations, the operator must:
(1)Close the road to normal vehicular traffic;
(2)Remove bridges and culverts associated with the road;
(3)Construct cross drains, dips, or water bars required to prevent or control water flow over or from the road surface; and
(4)Reshape the road surface to, so far as is practical, the contour closest to the stable natural contour;
(h)*Maintenance and public safety.* Throughout the operations, the operator must maintain all structures, equipment, and facilities in a safe, neat, and workmanlike manner. Where the operations cause hazardous sites or conditions, the operator must mark them by signs or other identification, isolate them by fences, or otherwise make them inaccessible to protect the public in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations.
(i)*Removal of structures and equipment.* Within the applicable period specified by paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the operator must remove all structures, whether temporary or permanent, facilities, and personal property, including equipment, located within the area of operations and otherwise clean up the area of operations. The United States, at its discretion, may take title to any property the operator does not remove from the area of operations within the applicable period. Such property of the United States is subject to removal and disposition at the Forest Service's discretion consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
(j)*Prevention and control of fire.* The operator must:
(1)Comply with all applicable Federal and State fire laws and regulations;
(2)Take all practical measures to prevent and suppress fires on the area of operations; and
(3)Require all persons, including but not limited to employees, contractors and subcontractors, who conduct or support the operations to comply with paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section.
(k)*Reclamation.* The operator must reclaim National Forest System lands disturbed by the operations by taking concurrent, seasonal, interim and long-term measures to, where practical, prevent or otherwise minimize onsite and off-site damage to the environment and National Forest System surface resources.
(1)The operator must begin reclamation at the earliest possible time during the operations.
(2)The operator must complete reclamation:
(i)Within the two-year term of a complete bonded notice provided by § 228.5(d)(1); or
(ii)Except as otherwise provided by an approved plan of operations, within one year of the exhaustion of the valuable mineral deposit, the conclusion of the operations, or a cessation of the operations that is not seasonal.
(3)The reclamation measures taken by the operator must, where practical:
(i)Prevent or control erosion and landslides;
(ii)Prevent or control water runoff;
(iii)Isolate, remove or control hazardous materials;
(iv)Reshape and revegetate disturbed areas;
(v)Reshape road surfaces to the contour closest to the stable natural contour;
(vi)Rehabilitate fisheries and wildlife habitat; and
(vii)Protect groundwater. § 228.10 Reasonably incident uses.
(a)The operator must not occupy or use National Forest System lands for any purpose not reasonably incident to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, development, mining, processing, or reclamation except as provided by § 228.12(e).
(b)The operator must not:
(1)Prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over National Forest System lands by any person except to the extent allowed for reasonable security and safety measures which are consistent with this subpart; or
(2)Conduct the following activities, which are not reasonably incident uses of National Forest System lands: Cultivating crops or produce; rearing or pasturing animals; storing, treating, processing, or disposing of non-mineral, hazardous, or toxic materials or waste generated elsewhere and brought onto National Forest System lands; operating rental, trade or manufacturing concerns; recycling or reprocessing of manufactured material such as scrap electronic parts, appliances, photographic film, and chemicals; searching for buried treasure, treasure trove, or archaeological specimens; operating hobby or curio shops, cafes, or tourist stands; maintaining, managing or hosting hunting or fishing camps; or providing outfitting or guiding services.
(c)When the authorized officer believes one or more proposed or current uses of National Forest System lands, other than those uses listed in paragraph
(b)of this section, would not be or are not reasonably incident, the authorized officer may initiate a surface use determination.
(1)When the authorized officer initiates a surface use determination, the authorized officer will:
(i)Notify the operator in writing that a surface use determination will be conducted;
(ii)Identify the proposed or current uses of National Forest System lands the authorized officer believes may not be reasonably incident;
(iii)Give the operator not less than 30 days to respond and show why the specified uses of National Forest System lands would be or are reasonably incident; and
(iv)Consider, where current uses of National Forest System lands are the subject of the surface use determination, any request included in the operator's response for the authorized officer to allow one or more of such uses to continue while the surface use determination process is ongoing providing that the response contains a detailed explanation of the reasons why the operator's request should be granted.
(2)The authorized officer will not allow an operator to continue a current use of National Forest System lands which is the subject of an ongoing surface use determination if such use:
(i)Is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources; or
(ii)Is causing irreparable injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources.
(3)An operator allowed, while the surface use determination process is ongoing, to continue a use of National Forest System lands considered by the surface use determination, must not take any action resulting, or likely to result, in an increase in the scope, extent, frequency, state of completion, or impact of such use.
(4)The certified Forest Service mineral examiner will consider the operator's response in completing the surface use determination. The mineral examiner also will prepare a report finding whether the uses of National Forest System lands examined in the surface use determination are reasonably incident and explaining the basis for such findings.
(5)The authorized officer will issue a decision, taking into consideration the findings of the surface use determination report, as to whether each use of National Forest System lands examined in the report is reasonably incident.
(i)The decision will explain any difference between the authorized officer's basis for concluding that a use of National Forest System lands is not reasonably incident and the basis of the surface use determination report's finding with respect to such use.
(ii)If the authorized officer concludes that any use of National Forest System lands examined in the surface use determination is not reasonably incident to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, development, mining, processing, reclamation or closure, the authorized officer's decision also will:
(A)Direct the operator to cease such use of National Forest System lands;
(B)Specify actions which the operator must take to remedy all injury, loss or damage to National Forest System surface resources which resulted from such use of National Forest System lands; and
(C)Specify one or more dates by which the operator must comply with paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) and
(B)of this section.
(iii)The Forest Service will promptly provide the authorized officer's decision and the surface use determination report to the operator. § 228.11 Cessation of operations.
(a)When an operator proposes a cessation of operations that is not seasonal and the applicable approved plan of operations contains provisions governing such a cessation of operations, the operator must immediately file a statement with the District Ranger:
(1)Specifying the date when the operator expects the cessation of operations to end;
(2)Providing an estimate of the extended duration of the operations;
(3)Indicating which, if any, of the structures, equipment and facilities within the area of operations the operator intends to remove during the cessation; and
(4)Indicates which, if any, of the structures, equipment and facilities within the area of operations the operator intends to retain during the cessation.
(b)When an operator proposes a cessation of operations that is not seasonal and the applicable approved plan of operations does not contain provisions governing such a cessation of operations, the operator must immediately file a statement with the District Ranger:
(1)Including the information specified by paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4)of this section;
(2)Including a schedule for the removal, as soon as practical, of all items identified by the operator in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section;
(3)Identifying all measures the operator proposes to take to comply with §§ 228.9 and 228.10 during such cessation of operations; and
(4)Including a schedule for the performance of all measures identified by the operator pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c)Where a cessation of operations statement is filed pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section, the authorized officer will:
(1)Review any schedule the operator proposes pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section for the removal of items and specify any practical revision of the schedule which the operator must implement to minimize damage to the environment and National Forest System surface resources;
(2)Review the measures the operator proposes to take pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section and specify all different or additional practical measures which the operator must take to minimize damage to the environment and National Forest System surface resources;
(3)Review the schedule the operator proposes pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section for the implementation of all measures identified by the operator and specify any practical revision of the schedule which the operator must implement to minimize damage to the environment and National Forest System surface resources;
(4)Specify a practical schedule for the operator's implementation of all measures required by the authorized officer pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
(5)Authorize any departure from the requirements of § 228.9(k)(2)(ii) which the authorized officer deems appropriate.
(d)If the duration of a cessation of operations will exceed one year, the process set forth in paragraphs
(a)through
(c)of this section, as applicable, must be completed at the beginning of the second and successive years.
(e)Throughout any cessation of operations, the operator must maintain a reclamation bond complying with § 228.13(a) through (c). When a cessation of operations will exceed, or has exceeded, one season and the applicable approved plan of operations does not specify the amount of bond coverage the operator must maintain during a cessation of operations that is not seasonal, the operator also must:
(1)Augment the existing reclamation bond by the amount the authorized officer required to cover the operator's interim obligations pursuant to this section; or
(2)Provide a separate reclamation bond complying with the applicable requirements of § 228.13(a) through
(c)in the amount the authorized officer required to cover the operator's interim obligations pursuant to this section.
(f)If the authorized officer determines an operator has ceased operations, the cessation is not attributable to seasonal considerations, and the operator has not filed a cessation of operations statement with the District Ranger pursuant to paragraphs
(a)or
(b)of this section, the authorized officer will require the operator to comply with the applicable paragraph within 30 days. § 228.12 Access for operations.
(a)An operator is entitled to reasonable access to conduct locatable mineral operations on National Forest System lands providing that such access:
(1)Is not prohibited by Federal law or regulation; and
(2)Complies with applicable requirements set forth elsewhere in this chapter, including, but not limited to, § 228.14, and parts 212 and 261 of this chapter.
(b)The operator must utilize existing means of access when it is economically and technically practical.
(c)The operator must not construct, reconstruct, or improve a road, trail, bridge, landing area for aircraft, or another access facility located on National Forest System lands before a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations providing for such work takes effect.
(d)A complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations must:
(1)Identify the means of access the operator will use in conducting operations on National Forest System lands;
(2)Specify the location, and, if applicable, the route, of all roads, trails, bridges, landing areas for aircraft, and other access facilities located on National Forest System lands which the operator must use in conducting the operations; and
(3)Specify the design standards for all roads, trails, bridges, landing areas for aircraft, and other access facilities located on National Forest System lands the operator must use in conducting the operations.
(e)When an operator is conducting operations on National Forest System lands, the Forest Service may elect to regulate access on National Forest System lands sought by the operator to perform associated work on lands for which a patent has been issued pursuant to the United States mining laws by means of a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations. Such access to perform associated work on private lands is subject to the requirements of this subpart provided that:
(1)Nothing in this subpart is deemed to abridge any independent right the operator has to such access; and
(2)Nothing in this subpart is deemed to confer an independent right to such access upon the operator. § 228.13 Reclamation bonds for bonded notices and plans of operation.
(a)The operator must provide the Forest Service a reclamation bond before a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations takes effect pursuant to § 228.5(d) or § 228.6(e), respectively. The reclamation bond must comply with this paragraph and paragraph
(b)of this section, and be in the amount calculated pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(1)An operator who will be authorized to conduct a single operation requiring a complete bonded notice or an approved plan of operations must furnish an individual reclamation bond.
(2)An operator, who will be authorized to conduct operations under two or more bonded notices, plans of operations, or a combination thereof, may furnish:
(i)An individual reclamation bond for any complete bonded notice or approved plan of operations; or
(ii)A blanket reclamation bond covering statewide or nationwide operations, providing the amount of the reclamation bond is at least equal to the cost to reclaim all operations covered by the reclamation bond as calculated pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(A)Upon the authorized officer's request, the operator must provide information demonstrating the amount of a blanket reclamation bond is at least equal to the aggregate cost to reclaim all operations covered by that reclamation bond.
(B)The operator must immediately inform all District Rangers administering lands on which operations covered by a blanket reclamation bond are currently authorized whenever the amount of such reclamation bond becomes less than the aggregate cost to reclaim all operations covered by the reclamation bond.
(b)One form of reclamation bond an operator may furnish is a surety bond naming the USDA Forest Service as a beneficiary, satisfies the requirements of Treasury Department Circular 570, and is available in full to the Forest Service.
(1)In lieu of furnishing a surety bond as the required reclamation bond, the operator may use a depository of funds approved by the Forest Service to:
(i)Deposit cash in an amount equal to the required dollar amount of the reclamation bond; or
(ii)Deposit negotiable securities of the United States having a market value at the time of deposit not less than the required dollar amount of the reclamation bond.
(2)The operator can use any combination of acceptable surety bonds, cash or negotiable securities of the United States as the reclamation bond providing the total amount of these instruments equals the estimated cost to reclaim National Forest System lands calculated pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(3)When reclamation an operator is required to complete includes long-term monitoring, maintenance, or treatment measures to prevent or otherwise minimize onsite or off-site damage to National Forest System surface resources, the operator also may establish an escrow account in a depository of funds approved by the Forest Service to finance those measures, providing the escrow account's annual earnings will be adequate to perform all such required measures annually on National Forest System lands. When the operator establishes an acceptable escrow account, the amount of the reclamation bond the operator must furnish pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section will be reduced by the amount of the reclamation cost attributable to the performance of required long-term monitoring, maintenance, or treatment measures as estimated pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(c)After the District Ranger or another authorized officer advises the operator in writing that a bonded notice is complete or a plan of operations is approved pursuant to § 228.5(d) or § 228.6(e), respectively, the operator must provide the Forest Service officer an estimate of the cost to reclaim National Forest System lands along with an explanation sufficient to show how the estimate was calculated.
(1)The estimate must set forth the cumulative cost of fully reclaiming all National Forest System lands affected by the operations in accordance with the requirements of § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the applicable complete bonded notice or approved plan of operations, assuming the Forest Service were to hire a contractor to perform all required reclamation.
(2)In estimating the cost to reclaim fully National Forest System lands, no value will be given to any property, such as structures, whether temporary or permanent, other facilities and personal property, including equipment, that an operator is required to remove from the area of operations in accordance with § 228.9(i).
(3)The operator's estimate of the cost to reclaim National Forest System lands must be acceptable to the Forest Service.
(d)The operator must maintain a reclamation bond complying with the requirements of this section until the reclamation bond is fully released pursuant to paragraph
(e)of this section or the reclamation bond is completely forfeited pursuant to paragraph
(f)of this section.
(e)When the authorized officer believes there has been a change in conditions relevant to reclamation of an operation conducted pursuant to an approved plan of operations, the officer may reassess the adequacy of the existing reclamation bond. The authorized officer will consider whether the residual amount of the reclamation bond equals the current cost of all remaining required reclamation as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section. The authorized officer also will consider whether the reclamation bond otherwise currently satisfies paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section.
(1)When the authorized officer finds the residual amount of the reclamation bond exceeds the current cost of all remaining required reclamation, as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section, within 30 days the authorized officer will:
(i)Calculate the amount of the reclamation bond to be released by subtracting such estimated cost of reclamation from the residual amount of the reclamation bond;
(ii)Release, or send the person who provided or holds the reclamation bond written authorization to release, the amount of the reclamation bond calculated in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; and
(iii)Send the operator a copy of any letter described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2)When the authorized officer believes the current cost of all remaining required reclamation, as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section, exceeds the residual amount of the reclamation bond or such reclamation bond otherwise does not satisfy paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section, the authorized officer will:
(i)Provide notice to the operator in writing which:
(A)Sets forth the reasons why the authorized officer believes augmentation of the reclamation bond's amount or other adjustment of the reclamation bond is required;
(B)Explains the assumptions and calculations the authorized officer utilized in proposing any augmentation of the reclamation bond's amount; and
(C)Gives the operator not less than 30 days to respond and show cause why the authorized officer should not require augmentation or adjustment of the reclamation bond.
(ii)Consider the operator's response and all other information in the administrative record in deciding whether to require augmentation or adjustment of the reclamation bond.
(iii)Issue a decision stating whether augmentation or adjustment of the reclamation bond is required, and if the decision requires augmentation or adjustment of the reclamation bond, the decision also will:
(A)Explain its basis;
(B)Specify any required augmentation of the reclamation bond's amount or any other adjustment of the reclamation bond;
(C)Specify the date by which the operator must provide the authorized officer proof the reclamation bond has been augmented or adjusted in accordance with the terms of the authorized officer's decision; and
(D)Identify any opportunity for the operator to file an administrative appeal of the decision.
(3)If the operator fails to comply with a decision requiring augmentation or other adjustment of the reclamation bond issued pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section by the date specified in the decision, or any extension thereof, the authorized officer will take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with § 228.8.
(f)The authorized officer will release, or send the person who provided or holds the reclamation bond written authorization to release, the reclamation bond, in whole or in part, as specified, after:
(1)The operator replaces the existing reclamation bond, in whole or in part, with a new reclamation bond satisfying the requirements of paragraphs
(a)through
(c)of this section, in which case the amount of the previous bond that will be released is calculated by subtracting the current cost of all remaining required reclamation, as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section, from the total of the residual amount of the previous bond plus the amount of the new bond; or
(2)The Forest Service accepts any portion of final reclamation as having been completed in accordance with § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the complete bonded notice or the approved plan of operations then in effect, in which case the amount of the reclamation bond that will be released is calculated by subtracting the current cost of all remaining required reclamation, as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section, from the residual amount of the reclamation bond.
(g)An authorized officer considering forfeiture of an operator's reclamation bond will:
(1)Initiate forfeiture of all or part of the reclamation bond as necessary to complete reclamation of National Forest System lands affected by the operations in accordance with the requirements of § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the applicable complete bonded notice or approved plan of operations when:
(i)The operator refuses or is unable to complete reclamation required by § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the applicable complete bonded notice or approved plan of operations;
(ii)The operator fails to take an action on which the continuation of the reclamation bond is conditioned;
(iii)A petition has been filed under the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 *et seq.* , by the operator or the operator's creditors; or
(iv)The authorized officer determines reclamation is necessary to prevent environmental damage resulting from the operator's cessation of operations.
(2)Provide notice to the operator, and the reclamation bond surety, if applicable, in writing which:
(i)Sets forth the reasons why the authorized officer believes forfeiture of the reclamation bond is warranted;
(ii)Identifies the required reclamation the operator has not performed;
(iii)Specifies the amount of the bond to be forfeited based on the current cost of all required reclamation as estimated by the authorized officer in accordance with paragraph
(c)of this section;
(iv)Gives the operator not less than 15 days to respond and show cause why the authorized officer should not forfeit the operator's reclamation bond; and
(v)Advises the operator may avoid forfeiture if, within 20 days or the period otherwise specified by the authorized officer, the operator:
(A)Begins the required reclamation in accordance with § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the complete bonded notice or the approved plan of operations;
(B)Demonstrates, in writing, to the authorized officer's satisfaction that the operator will promptly complete the required reclamation in accordance with § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the complete bonded notice or the approved plan of operations; or
(C)Demonstrates, in writing, to the authorized officer's satisfaction how another person will promptly complete the required reclamation and how this person has the ability to do so in accordance with § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the complete bonded notice or the approved plan of operations.
(3)Consider any response submitted by the operator and all other information in the administrative record in deciding whether to forfeit the reclamation bond, in whole or in part.
(4)Issue a decision stating whether forfeiture of the reclamation bond will occur, and if the decision provides for forfeiture of the reclamation bond, the decision also will:
(i)Explain its basis;
(ii)Specify the amount of the reclamation bond that will be forfeited; and
(iii)Identify any opportunity for the operator to file an administrative appeal of the decision.
(5)Take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with § 228.8 when required reclamation is not promptly completed in accordance with § 228.9(i), § 228.9(k), and the complete bonded notice or the approved plan of operations after the operator demonstrated pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(v)(B) or paragraph (g)(2)(v)(C) of this section the operator or another person, respectively, would promptly complete such reclamation.
(6)Refund to the operator, or if applicable the reclamation bond surety, any amount of the forfeited reclamation bond exceeding the cost of completing the required reclamation. § 228.14 Operations on withdrawn or segregated National Forest System lands including National Forest Wilderness.
(a)The United States mining laws apply to each National Forest Wilderness for the period specified by the Wilderness Act or subsequent establishing legislation to the same extent these laws were applicable prior to the date the Wilderness was designated by Congress as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
(b)A person who holds a mining claim valid immediately prior to the inclusion of the lands encompassed by the mining claim within a National Forest Wilderness will be:
(1)Accorded the rights provided by the United States mining laws as applicable before the lands were added to the National Wilderness Preservation System; and
(2)Permitted access to such mining claim, providing the mining claim is wholly within the Wilderness, by means consistent with the preservation of the Wilderness that have been or are being customarily used to access other valid mining claims completely surrounded by National Forest Wilderness.
(c)A person who holds a mining claim located on or after the date on which the lands encompassed by the mining claim were added to the National Wilderness Preservation System will:
(1)Be accorded the rights provided by the United States mining laws as then applicable to the land subject to all provisions specified by the establishing legislation; and
(2)Have no right or interest, subject to valid existing rights, in or to any locatable mineral deposit discovered, through prospecting, exploration, or otherwise uncovering the deposit, after the date on which the United States mining laws ceased to apply to the Wilderness.
(d)Within a National Forest Wilderness, an operator must:
(1)Limit the operations conducted to those then authorized by the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights;
(2)Conduct all operations in compliance with an approved plan of operations then in effect and the regulations set forth in this subpart;
(3)Refrain from constructing roads prior to obtaining written authorization to do so from the appropriate Forest Supervisor in accordance with § 228.12(c); and
(4)Have the right to cut and use the volume of mature timber needed for the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of a valuable locatable mineral deposit, providing:
(i)Such timber is not otherwise reasonably available; and
(ii)Such timber is cut in compliance with § 223.30 of this chapter and provisions set forth in the approved plan of operations reflecting sound principles of forest management, which as a minimum require the operator to:
(A)Harvest the timber in a manner which minimizes soil movement and damage from water runoff; and
(B)Take precautionary measures, including disposal of slash, to minimize damage to surface resources from forest insects, disease or fire related to the timber harvest.
(e)As authorized by the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(2), the Chief, Forest Service, will allow any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about minerals occurring within National Forest Wilderness:
(1)Drawing no distinction as to whether those minerals would be subject to location under the United States mining laws absent their withdrawal from those laws pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(3) or subsequent establishing legislation;
(2)Specifying no person will have any right or interest in or to any mineral deposit discovered through such activity; and
(3)Requiring that such activity be:
(i)Conducted in accordance with an approved plan of operations and all requirements of this subpart applicable to a proposed or approved plan of operations; and
(ii)Carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment as specified by the approved plan of operations.
(f)After the date on which the lands are withdrawn from appropriation under the United States mining laws, the authorized officer will not approve a plan of operations until the Forest Service has prepared a mineral examination report to consider whether the mining claim was valid before the withdrawal, and whether it remains valid. The authorized officer also may require preparation of a mineral examination report before approving a plan of operations or determining that a bonded notice is complete for operations on segregated National Forest System lands. When the report finds that a mining claim is invalid and the operator declines to revise the proposed operations to avoid the withdrawn or segregated National Forest System lands in question, the Forest Service will also request that BLM promptly initiate contest proceedings to determine the validity of all mining claims in question.
(g)If the Forest Service has not completed a mineral examination report being prepared in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this section, if a completed mineral examination report prepared in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this section finds that a mining claim is invalid, or if the validity of a mining claim subject to paragraph
(f)of this section is the subject of a mineral contest or a federal judicial proceeding:
(1)Insofar as the National Forest System lands in question have been withdrawn from the operation of the United States mining laws, the authorized officer may:
(i)Approve a plan of operations for proposed operations on a disputed mining claim that are limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that were physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation or withdrawal date, whichever is earlier; and
(ii)Approve a plan of operations for the operator to perform the minimum necessary annual assessment work on a disputed mining claim.
(2)Insofar as National Forest System lands in question have been segregated from the operation of the United States mining laws, the authorized officer may:
(i)Take the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(ii)of this section; and
(ii)Review for completeness a bonded notice for proposed operations on a disputed mining claim that are limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that were physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation date.
(h)While a mineral examination report is being prepared, initiation of a mineral contest is being considered, or the validity of the mining claim is the subject of a mineral contest or federal judicial proceeding, the Forest Service may suspend the time limit for responding to a proposed bonded notice or acting on a proposed plan of operations set forth in § 228.5(b) and § 228.6(c), respectively.
(i)When a mining claim has been conclusively determined to lack valid existing rights, whether by virtue of a Forest Service mineral examination report, a mineral contest, of Federal judicial proceedings, the operator must cease all operations, except required reclamation. § 228.15 Administrative appeals. Decisions made by Forest Service officers pursuant to part 228, subpart A may be subject to appeal by the operator in accordance with part 251, subpart C, of this chapter. § 228.16 Applicability of this subpart.
(a)*Newly proposed operations.* This subpart applies to all operations proposed by an operator or after [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule].
(b)*Preexisting notice of intent to conduct operations.* The operator may continue to conduct operations for 2 years after [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] under the terms of a notice of intent to conduct operations and the regulations in effect immediately before that date (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2007) providing:
(1)Such notice of intent to conduct operations was properly filed with the Forest Service more than 15 days prior to [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule], the authorized officer has not since advised the operator the operations require an approved plan of operations, and such notice of intent to conduct operations remains in effect on [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule]; or
(2)Such notice of intent to conduct operations was properly filed with the Forest Service 15 or fewer days before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] unless the District Ranger, within 15 days of receiving the notice of intent to conduct operations, advises the operator that the proposed operations require an approved plan of operations.
(c)*Preexisting proposed plans of operation.* Where an operator had properly filed a proposed plan of operations with the Forest Service before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] but such plan of operations had not been approved or had not taken effect before that date, the operator is subject:
(1)To the provisions of this subpart except the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9; and
(2)To the plan of operations content requirements and the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule]. (See 36 CFR 228.4(c) and (d), and 36 CFR 228.8 (2007).)
(d)*Preexisting approved plan of operations.* Where an operator had obtained approval of plan of operations before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] and such plan of operations remains in effect on that date, the operator:
(1)Shall post a reclamation bond complying with the requirements of this subpart no later than [ *Insert Date 180 Days After the Effective Date of the Final Rule* ] unless—
(i)The operator had posted a bond prior to [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] which complied with the regulations in effect immediately before that date (see 36 CFR 228.13 (2007)); and
(ii)The bond complying with paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section remains in effect and satisfies the requirements of this subpart.
(2)Is otherwise subject to the provisions of this subpart except the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9.
(3)Is subject to the plan of operations content requirements and the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule]. (See 36 CFR 228.4(c) and (d), and 36 CFR 228.8 (2007).)
(4)Is subject to the terms and conditions of such approved plan of operations.
(e)*Preexisting unapproved modifications of approved plans of operation.* Where an operator had properly filed with the Forest Service a proposed modification of a plan of operations that had been approved and had taken effect before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] and remains in effect, but such modification had not been approved or had not taken effect before that date, the operator is subject:
(1)To the provisions of this subpart, including paragraph (d)(1) of this section, except the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9;
(2)To the plan of operations content requirements and the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule]. (see 36 CFR 228.4(c) and (d), and 36 CFR 228.8 (2007)); and
(3)With respect to all operations not governed by the plan of operations modification, to the terms and conditions of the unmodified plan of operations.
(f)*Newly proposed modifications of preexisting approved plans of operation.* Where an operator, on or after [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] files with the Forest Service a proposed modification of a plan of operations that had been approved and had taken effect before that date and remains in effect, the operator is subject either to paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, depending upon the scope of the proposed modification. In either case, the operator also is subject to paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(1)If the proposed modification will govern operations subject to the previously approved plan of operations, the operator may seek to show to the authorized officer's satisfaction that it is impractical for economic, environmental, safety, or technical reasons to apply the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9, to the plan of operations modification.
(i)When the authorized officer finds such impracticality, the operator, with respect to the operations that will be governed by the modification, is subject:
(A)To the provisions of this subpart except the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9; and
(B)To the plan of operations content requirements and the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] (See 36 CFR 228.4(c) and (d), and 36 CFR 228.8 (2007)).
(ii)When the authorized officer does not find such impracticality, the operator is subject to this subpart with respect to the operations governed by the modification.
(2)If the proposed modification will govern new operations or additional acreage, the operator is subject to this subpart with respect to such operations and such acreage.
(3)With respect to all operations not governed by the plan of operations modification, the operator is subject:
(i)To the provisions of this subpart, including paragraph (d)(1) of this section, except the plan of operations content requirements, § 228.4(f)(4), and the environmental protection requirements, § 228.9;
(ii)To the plan of operations content requirements and the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] (see 36 CFR 228.4(c) and (d), and 36 CFR 228.8 (2007)); and
(iii)To the terms and conditions of the preexisting approved plan of operations.
(g)*Other preexisting operations.* This subpart applies to all preexisting operations not subject to paragraphs
(b)through
(f)of this section that were not completed before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule] in accordance with the terms and conditions of any applicable notice of intent to conduct operations or approved plan of operations, or in compliance with the regulations in effect immediately before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule]. (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2007.)
(h)*Optional applicability.* An operator may choose to have this subpart apply to any notice of intent to conduct operations or any plan of operations submitted to the Forest Service before [Insert Effective Date of the Final Rule], where not otherwise required. PART 261—PROHIBITIONS 5. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i). Subpart A—General Prohibitions 6. In § 261.2, revise the definition of “operating plan” and add a definition of “residence” to read as follows: § 261.2 Definitions. *Operating plan* means the following documents, providing the document has been issued, approved, or found complete by the Forest Service: A plan of operations as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subparts A and D, and 36 CFR part 292, subparts C and G; a supplemental plan of operations as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, and 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; a complete bonded notice as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A; an operating plan as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subpart C, and 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; an amended operating plan and a reclamation plan as provided for by 36 CFR part 292, subpart G; a surface use plan of operations as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subpart E; a supplemental surface use plan of operations as provided for by 36 CFR part 228, subpart E; a permit as provided for by 36 CFR 251.15; and an operating plan and a letter of authorization as provided for by 36 CFR part 292, subpart D. *Residence* means any structure or shelter, whether temporary or permanent, including, but not limited to, buildings, buses, cabins, campers, houses, lean-tos, mills, mobile homes, motor homes, pole barns, recreational vehicles, sheds, shops, tents and trailers, which is being used, capable of being used, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, full or part-time, as living or sleeping quarters by any person, including a guard or watchman. 7. In § 261.10, revise paragraphs (a),
(b)and (l); and add paragraphs
(p)and
(q)to read as follows: § 261.10 Occupancy and use.
(a)Constructing, improving, maintaining, occupying, placing, repairing, reconstructing, retaining, or using any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, gate, enclosure, communications equipment, or other improvement on National Forest System land or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, complete bonded notice, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
(b)Constructing, improving, maintaining, placing, protecting, repairing, reconstructing, retaining, or using a residence on National Forest System land unless authorized by a special-use authorization, a complete bonded notice, or an approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
(l)Violating any term or condition of a special-use authorization, contract, complete bonded notice, or an approved operating plan.
(p)Use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without a complete bonded notice or an approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
(q)Storing equipment, machinery, parts, process materials, spent materials, supplies, tools and vehicles without a complete bonded notice or an approved operating plan when such authorization is required. PART 292—NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS Subpart D—Sawtooth National Recreation Area—Federal Lands 8. The authority citation for part 292, subpart D continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 1, 30 Stat. 35, 36, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 478, 551; sec. 11, 86 Stat. 612, 16 U.S.C. 460aa-10. 9. Revise the first sentence of paragraph
(a)of § 292.17 to read as follows: § 292.17 General provisions.
(a)The use, management and utilization of natural resources on the Federal lands within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area
(SNRA)are subject to the General Management Plan and the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the National Forests with the exception that part 228, subpart A of this chapter does not apply to these resources. * * * Subpart G—Smith River National Recreation Area 10. The authority citation for part 292, subpart G continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460bbb *et seq.* 11. In § 292.63, revise the introductory text of paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 292.63 Plan of operations—supplementary requirements.
(c)*Minimum information on proposed operations.* In addition to the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section, a proposed plan of operations must provide the information required by § 228.4(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this chapter which includes information about the proponent and a detailed description of the proposed operation. If the operator and mining claim owner are different, the operator also must submit a copy of the authorization or agreement under which the proposed operations are to be conducted. In addition, a proposed plan of operations must include measures to meet the environmental protection requirements, including acceptable reclamation, set forth at § 228.9 of this chapter. A proposed plan of operations also must include the following: 12. Revise paragraph
(e)of § 292.64 to read as follows: § 292.64 Plan of operations—approval.
(e)Upon completion of the review of the plan of operations, the authorized officer will ensure the minimum information required by § 292.63(c) has been addressed and, pursuant to § 228.6(c) of this chapter, notify the operator in writing whether or not the plan of operations is approved. PART 293—WILDERNESS—PRIMITIVE AREAS 13. The authority citation for part 293 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 1131-1136 and 92 Stat.1649. 14. In § 293.2, revise the first sentence of the introductory text to read as follows: § 293.2 Objectives. Except as otherwise provided by the regulations of this part and part 228, subpart A of this chapter, National Forest Wilderness will be so administered as to meet the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical uses; and it also will be administered for such other purposes for which it may have been established in such a manner as to preserve and protect its wilderness character. * * * 15. In § 293.15, revise the second sentence of paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 293.15 Gathering information about resources other than minerals.
(a)* * * Prospecting for minerals or any activity for the purpose of gathering information about minerals within National Forest Wilderness is subject to the regulations set forth at part 228, subpart A of this chapter. Dated: March 14, 2008. Joel D. Holthrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E8-5746 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 RIN 0648-AP60 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
(MSB)Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)(Amendment 9), incorporating the public hearing document and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce and is requesting comments from the public. The goal of Amendment 9 is to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP became effective in 1999. Amendment 9 would establish multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, *Illex* squid ( *Illex* ), and *Loligo* squid ( *Loligo* )) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points recommended by the Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC)for *Loligo* ; designate essential fish habitat
(EFH)for *Loligo* eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 9 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 9, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.nmfs.gov* . Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov;* • Fax:
(978)281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen; • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 9.” 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 (e.g., 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 formats only. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This amendment is needed to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP (64 FR 57587, October 26, 1999) became effective in 1999. Although Amendment 8 was partially approved in 1999, NMFS noted that the amendment inadequately addressed some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements for Federal FMPs. Specifically, the amendment was considered deficient with respect to: Consideration of fishing gear impacts on EFH as they relate to MSB fisheries; designation of EFH for *Loligo* eggs; and the reduction of bycatch and discarding of target and non-target species in the MSB fisheries. An earlier draft of Amendment 9, adopted by the Council on February 15, 2007, contained several management measures intended to address deficiencies in the MSB FMP that relate to discarding, especially as they affect butterfish. Specifically, these management measures would have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh size increases in the directed *Loligo* fishery, removal of mesh size exemptions for the directed *Illex* fishery, and establishment of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, these specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished. In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished and this triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, Amendment 10 to the FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Amendment 10 contains a rebuilding program for butterfish with management measures designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding. Management measures that reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action is proposed in Amendment 9 to address these issues. Through the development and implementation of Amendment 10, each of the measures to reduce the bycatch of finfish will be given full consideration. Additionally, Amendment 10 will include updated analyses on the effects of the alternatives and, as Amendment 10 is expected to be implemented soon after Amendment 9, no meaningful delay in addressing the bycatch deficiencies in the FMP should occur. The final version of Amendment 9 contains alternatives that consider allowing for multi-year specifications and management measures, extending or eliminating the moratorium on entry to the directed *Illex* fishery, revising the biological reference points for *Loligo* , designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs, implementing area closures to reduce gear impacts from MSB fisheries on EFH of other federally-managed species, increasing the incidental possession limit for *Illex* vessels during a closure of the *Loligo* fishery, and requiring real-time electronic reporting via vessel monitoring systems in the *Illex* fishery. The Council held four public meetings on Amendment 9 during May 2007. Following the public comment period that ended on May 21, 2007, the Council adopted Amendment 9 on August 6, 2007. In Amendment 9, measures recommended by the Council would: Allow for multi-year specifications for all four managed species (mackerel, butterfish, *Illex* , and *Loligo* ) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points for *Loligo* recommended by the SARC; designate EFH for *Loligo* eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons. Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 9 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 9 may be published in the **Federal Register** for public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of Amendment 9 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by May 27, 2008, whether specifically directed to Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 9. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 9. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 19, 2008. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-6001 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 58 Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 19, 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)720-8958. 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. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Animal Care; Survey of Licensees and Registrants. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Laboratory Animal Welfare
(AWA)(Pub. L. 89-544) enacted August 24, 1966, and amended December 24, 1970 (Pub. L. 91-579); April 22, 1976 (Pub. L. 94-279); and December 23, 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198) requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the humane care and handling of most warm-blooded animals used for research or exhibition purposes, sold as pets or transported in commerce. A survey will be conducted of a representative sampling of all of the current licensees and registrants regarding the effectiveness of Animal Care's core business processes, including; establishing standards of care through creation and modification of regulations and policies; inspecting licensed and registered facilities to determine compliance; responding to complaints about facilities; and educating and communicating with facilities and the public. Data will be collected and analyzed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Program and Policy Development. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information to show trends related to the Animal Care Program's efforts to provide quality services to its licensees and registrants. Without the information APHIS would not be able to accurately measure the enforcement of the program and still meet the provision of the Act. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 4,200. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 672. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Animal Care; Educational and Outreach Efforts. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care Program (AC), conducts inspections to administer and enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act and regulations issued under those Acts. AC also conducts workshops, symposia, and meetings, and other activities to educate regulated entities and the public about these Acts and regulations. AC plans to survey participants in these activities to measure the effectiveness of its outreach and educational efforts. The surveys would be distributed to attendees following workshops, symposia, meetings, and other events. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information to determine whether the information was helpful and how it might be improved. AC also plans to use the information collected to assess the effectiveness of its efforts and to plan improvements to activities. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 2,700. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 675. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Survey of Organizations Interested in Animal Welfare. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Laboratory Animal Welfare
(AWA)(Pub. L. 89-544) enacted August 24, 1966, and amended December 24, 1970 (Pub. L. 91-579); April 22, 1976 (Pub. L. 94-279); and December 23, 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198) requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the humane care and handling of most warm-blooded animals used for research or exhibition purposes, sold as pets or transported in commerce. A survey will be conducted of a representative sampling of Organizations Interested in Animal Welfare regarding the effectiveness of Animal Care's core business processes, including establishing standards of care through creation and modification of regulations and policies; inspecting licensed and registered facilities; and educating and communicating with facilities and the public. Data will be collected and analyzed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Program and Policy Division. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information to understand how these interested organizations rate overall program performance, and whether there are any gaps between their expectations and management perception. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 500. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 80. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service *Title:* Pine Shoot Beetle Host Material from Canada. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0257. *Summary of Collection:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or movement of plants and plant pests to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have established restrictions on the importation of pine shoot beetle host material into the United States from Canada. Pine shoot beetle
(PSB)is a pest of pine trees. It can cause damage in weak and dying trees where reproductive and immature stages of PSB occur, and in the new growth of healthy trees. PSB can damage urban ornamental trees and can cause economic losses to the timber, Christmas trees, and nursery industries. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect the information using Compliance Agreements, Written Statements, and Canadian Phytosanitary Certificates to protect the United States from the introduction of pine shoot beetle and other plant diseases. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 2,340. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 94. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5940 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 20, 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. Forest Service *Title:* Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Study. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs that the National Wilderness Preservation System be managed to protect natural wilderness conditions and to provide outstanding opportunities for the public to find solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreational experiences. To help meet Federal agencies' mandates related to recreation, scientists at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute periodically monitor and report to mangers and the public, visitor use and user characteristics and visitor feedback on management actions on federal lands, including National Wildlife Refuges. *Need and Use of the Information:* This study will only ask recreation visitors questions about their recreation visit, their personal demographics relevant to education and service provision, and factors that have influenced or are likely to influence their recreation visits. Agency personnel will use the collected information to ensure that visitors' recreational activities do not harm the natural resources of the refuge and that wilderness-type recreation experiences are protected. The information it provides will also be used to inform the Refuge's upcoming Comprehensive Conservation Plan revision and in the development of its Wilderness Stewardship and Public Use Management Plans. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 140. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5982 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Commodity Credit Corporation Information Collection: Long Term Contracting System
(LTCS)AGENCY: Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)at Kansas City Commodity Office
(KCCO)are seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with revision of a currently approved information collection associated with the Long Term Contracting System. This collection is necessary for the procurement of agricultural commodities by KCCO for domestic feeding programs. Vendors bidding on long-term invitations complete and submit their offers on-line through the Long Term Contracting System (LTCS), which records the system date/time that the offer was submitted and ensures that the data remains secured within the system until bid opening time. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 27, 2008 to be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-mail: Send comments to: *khristy.baughman@kcc.usda.gov.* *Fax:*
(816)926-1648. Mail: Khristy Baughman, Chief, Business Operations Support Division, Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO), P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, Missouri 64141-0205. Comments also should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for USDA, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khristy Baughman, Chief, Business Operations Support Division, phone
(816)926-1200. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Long Term Contracting System (LTCS). *OMB Number:* 0560-0249. *Type of Request:* Extension with revisions. *Abstract:* The Long Term Contracting System
(LTCS)is a Web-based application that streamlines the bid entry and evaluation functions for Long-Term, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity
(IDIQ)contracts. KCCO will generally issue invitations for bids to purchase commodities for domestic feeding programs on an annual, semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly basis; however, invitations may be issued more frequently, depending on various program requirements. Bid offers are received, evaluated, and awarded within the LTCS. Interested vendors submit a price per destination for each product, along with their available capacities per delivery period/month, and their answers to specific certification questions. The information collected is processed through the LTCS bid evaluation program to determine optimal awards. KCCO will analyze the results of the bid evaluation and award contracts to the eligible, responsible and responsive bidders whose offers are most advantageous to USDA in terms of the lowest overall cost. It is necessary to collect this information in order to evaluate bids impartially. The LTCS automatically ties together monthly allocation contracts with the applicable long-term contract, and since LTCS will access real-time data, users are able to access up-to-the-minute contract award information. Vendors can access LTCS on-line prior to bid opening time to submit, modify, or withdraw their offers. The automated process of LTCS significantly reduces the chance for errors in awards and reduces recordkeeping errors associated with the former manual process of tracking contract data. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for collecting information under this notice is estimated to average 23 hours per response. *Respondents:* Interested vendors. *Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 920 hours. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)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;
(2)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhancing the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; or
(4)Minimizing the burden of the collection of the 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. All responses 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 for Office of Management and Budget approval. Signed at Washington, DC, on March 19, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5986 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection; Transfer of Farm Records Between Counties AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency
(FSA)is seeking comments from interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with transferring of farm records from one administrative county office to another. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 27, 2008 to be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Farm Service Agency, USDA, Attn: Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist, Common Provisions Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments should also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments also may be submitted by e-mail to: *alison.groenwoldt@wdc.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist,
(202)720-4213 and *alison.groenwoldt@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description of Information Collection *Title:* Transfer of Farm Records Between Counties. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0253. *Type of Request:* Extension with no revision. *Abstract:* Farm owners or operators may elect to transfer farm records between counties when the principal dwelling of the farm operator has changed, a change has occurred in the operation of the land, or a change has occurred that would cause the receiving administrative county office to be more accessible such as a new highway and relocation of the county office building site. The transfer of farm records is also required when an FSA county office closes. FSA County Committees from both the transferring and receiving county must approve or disapprove all proposed farm transfers. In some cases, the State Committee and/or the National Office must also approve or disapprove proposed farm transfers. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response. The average travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent. *Type of Respondents:* Owners and operators. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 25,000. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 29,175 hours. Comment is invited on:
(1)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;
(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; or
(4)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on those who are respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic or mechanical, 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 for Office of Management and Budget Approval. Signed at Washington, DC, on March 19, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5984 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting to review 2007 projects, hold a short public forum (question and answer session), and presentation on Fuel treatment Effects on Fire Behavior. The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393). The meeting is open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on March 25, 2008, 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Office, 1801 N First, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Daniel Ritter, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile
(406)777-7423, or electronically to *dritter@fs.fed.us* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, phone:
(406)777-5461. Dated: March 14, 2008. Barry Paulson, Deputy Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-5854 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment. Pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 *et seq.* ), the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat. List of Petitions Received by EDA For Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment March 1, 2008 Through March 31, 2008 Firm Address Date accepted for filing Products Penn Scale Manufacturing Company, Inc 150 West Berks Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 1/31/08 Manufactures scales and scoops. Briggs Rainbow Buildings, Inc. P.O. Box 308, Ft. Gibson, OK 74434 3/18/08 Steel Building and Roofing. Prairie Authority, LLC dba Yuletideexpressions.com 111 9th Street, SE, Cooperstown, ND 58425 2/20/08 Light Manufacturing. Pro-Pak Industries, Inc. 1125 Ford Street, Maumee, OH 43537 2/29/08 Manufactures rigid boxes and cartons of paper or paperboard. Graham Stamping Company 1700 Broadway Company, PO box 578, Wheatland, PA 16161 3/18/08 Manufactures metal stamping products. Lines Unlimited, Inc. 715 Park Center Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284 3/18/08 Manufactures material includes wood and metal. Johnston Textiles, Inc. 300 Colin Powell Parkway Phenix City, AL 36869 3/18/08 Manufactures diverse line of both decorative and technical textile products. Jaycat, Inc. dba Carlson Products 4601 N. Tyler Rd., Maize, KS 67101-8734 1/24/08 Doors and Related Products. Vinylex Corporation 2636 Byington-Solway Rd., Knoxville, TN 37931 1/31/08 Manufactures and markets custom thermoplastic profile extrusions. Hyde Tools, Inc. 54 Eastford Road, Southbridge, MA 01550 2/28/08 Manufactures household tools and parts for painting, wall covering, flooring drywall, masonry, maintenance and Surface preparation. Delaware Valley Custom Marble (Glenmar Mfg) 4 Briar Drive, West Grove, PA 19390 2/19/08 Manufactures cultured marble products primarily for residential bath use. Kelvin International, Corp. 12650 McManus Blvd, Newport News, VA 23602 2/19/08 Manufactures cryogenic equipment. Midbrook, Inc. 2080 Brooklyn Road, Jackson, MI 49203 12/14/08 Manufactures industrial cleaning for bottles, auto parts and other items. Cherek Machine & Tool Co., Inc. 835 Sherman Avenue, Hamden, Connecticut 06514 2/8/08 Produces small machine parts and tooling. Moon Woodturning, Inc. 118 W. Watson Street, Pacific, MO 63069 1/30/08 Custom Wood Turning Product. Maryland Plastics, Inc. 251 East Central Ave., Federalsburg, MD 21632 1/15/08 Manufactures plastic consumer house wares and cutlery. Marshall Engineering Product Company, LLC 3056 Walker Ridge Drive, Suite C, Grand Rapids, MI 49544 12/17/08 Centrifugal and turbine pumps and similar steam and hydronic heating equipment. Centerline Die & Engineering, LLC 28661 Van Dyke Ave, Warren, MI 48093 2/22/08 Tools and die. The Green Company 15550 W. 109th St., Lenexa, KS 66219 1/25/08 Emblematic jewelry, awards and gifts. LDC, Inc. 30R Houghton St, Providence, RI 2/26/08 Products form sterling silver, 14KT gold and base metals. Universal Forest Products 26200 Nowell Road, Thornton, CA 95686 1/31/08 Lumber remanufacturer and distributor. H & H Propeller Shop, Inc. Zero Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970 1/30/08 Wide range of marine propulsion products and services. Hiawatha Rubber Co. 1700 67th Avenue N., Minneapolis, MN 55430 3/6/08 Designs and manufactures products such as rubber rollers, roller covers Diaphragms, seals, gaskets and Related molded rubber products. Fantasy Diamond Corp. 1550 West Central, Chicago, IL 60607 3/3/08 Manufactures pendants, earings, bracelets and rings out of gold, diamonds and other precious stones. Flux Studios, Inc. 4001 Ravenswood Ave, Chicago, IL 60613 2/29/08 Stainless steel and bronze decorative floor and wall tiles. Simplomatic Manufacturing Company 816 N. Kostner Avenue, Chicago, IL 60651 3/3/08 Stamped metal and injection molded plastic components of mechanical seals, bearings and turbochargers. Lynn Halfmann H.C. 34-Box 187, Midland, TX 79706 2/19/08 Combed and carded cotton for textile manufacturing. R.L. Stowe Mills, Inc. 100 N. Main Street, Belmont, NC 28012 2/29/08 Manufactures and markets ring spun combed and open end cotton yarn, twisted yarn, corespun yarns, dyed and mercerized yarns. Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Performance Evaluation, Room 7009, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
(10)calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in section 315.9 of EDA's final rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. Dated: March 19, 2008. William P. Kittredge, Program Officer for TAA. [FR Doc. E8-6036 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration International Trade Administration Mission Statement AGENCY: Department of Commerce, ITA. ACTION: Notice. Mission Statement Aerospace, Defense and Security Trade Mission to Athens, Greece October 7-10, 2008. Mission Description: The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service is organizing an Aerospace, Defense and Security Trade Mission, October 7-10, 2008, to Athens, Greece, with an optional stop in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 5-6, 2008. The mission will coincide with Defendory 2008 in Athens, where U.S. participants will meet with both Greek and Turkish business contacts. Defendory is one of the world's leading exhibitions for sea, land and air defense products and technologies. The trade mission will target a broad range of aerospace, defense, and safety and security products and services, and will consist of customized one-on-one appointments at the Defendory exhibit site between U.S. participants and Greek customers/business partners, as well as Turkish customers/business partners. Delegation members may take advantage of the optional stop in Israel before the mission starts in Greece. The goal of the mission will be to match participating U.S. companies with pre-screened agents, distributors, representatives, licensees, buyers, and joint venture partners, and where appropriate, arrange for appointments with government officials, traditionally large purchasers of products and services in the highlighted sectors. Consumers in Greece, Turkey and Israel have a strong affinity for U.S. products and services in these sectors. Commercial Setting *Greece:* Greece's allocation of gross domestic product
(GDP)for defense is the highest in the European Union (EU). A partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Greece is continuing to modernize the Hellenic Armed Forces and shift its force structure toward smaller, more flexible formations. To achieve this, the government has announced plans to spend more than $3 billion by 2011, in addition to the $8 billion it has spent in recent years on defense equipment. Greece provides U.S. defense firms with excellent opportunities as it pursues a number of high-priority programs, including new frigates, helicopters, missiles, fighters and “new generation” trainer aircraft. The necessity for more and better security has resulted in increased market potential associated with the upgrading of Greek airport and port security, to be funded from the Greek national budget, EU funds, the Interregional Plan, and public-private partnerships. Opportunities for U.S. firms exist in a number of airport and port safety and security projects. The Greek civil aviation structure consists of 82 commercial airports, of which 38 are under the jurisdiction of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority (HCAA). According to the HCAA, total airport traffic in Greece through 2006 reached 40 million travelers, and is expected to increase to more than 50 million by 2010. Greece has 123 cargo/passenger ports that handle passenger ships, cruise ships and cargo. The main ports, Piraeus and Thessaloniki, serve as a gateway to the Balkans. Significant developments that will influence demand for port safety and security include equipment upgrades associated with the Container Security Initiative
(CSI)and/or International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS), as well as the HCAA's plans for security upgrades. The ISPS Code defines mandatory measures to strengthen maritime security and prevent acts of terrorism against shipping and port facilities. One offshoot of these requirements is the Greek Ministry of Merchant Marine's plans to announce, by the end of 2008, an international tender worth more than $496 million for the design, implementation and operation of a fully integrated security system for 12 Greek national ports. The system will include surface, underwater and perimeter security according to the ISPS Code. A second tender will follow to cover the remaining Greek ports. U.S. companies enjoy an excellent reputation for high-quality equipment, advanced technology, superior technical proficiency, and expertise in the design and execution of large-scale security projects. Innovative security products are in high demand. *Turkey:* Located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East, Turkey is prepared to defend its national interest along many different fronts. Turkey maintains the second largest land force in NATO and second largest fleet of F-16s, second only to the United States. Turkey's role in NATO—including support of security and humanitarian operations, as well as regional crisis management—is one of the cornerstones of the nation's relationship with the United States. The FY 2007 Ministry of Defense
(MOD)budget resulted in a 12% increase compared to FY 2006 and reached 13.2 billion in New Turkish Liras, constituting 2.1% of the gross national product (GNP). This does not include spending by either the Ministry of Interior's Gendarme or the Under secretariat for Defense Industry procurements. Potential major procurements in 2008 are expected to include frigates, submarines, coastal surveillance radars, tactical wheeled vehicles, satellites, and air defense systems. The safety and security market in Turkey is new and developing rapidly. The market size was estimated to be $3 billion in 2007—approximately $2.5 billion of which was devoted to physical security services such as private security guards, patrols, and training. Biometrics, closed circuit systems (CCTV), access detectors, and X-ray equipment are among the best prospects for equipment. *Israel:* In the homeland security, defense and aerospace sectors, U.S. exporters are the preferred suppliers for Israeli companies. The attractive dollar exchange rate, sophisticated technologies, cultural affinities, and strong political and commercial bonds between the United States and Israel are the main factors why Israeli manufacturers look to do business with U.S. firms. Israel's security-awareness and high level of preparedness are the driving forces for the development of the country's cutting edge security industry, which in 2007 produced an estimated $4.5 billion in equipment and services. Israel is an attractive market for U.S. manufacturers of high-end equipment and of components that can be integrated into Israeli systems. The import market, estimated at $510 million has a 70% U.S. market share. U.S. security equipment is often used for sensitive applications, by high-security industries and for key infrastructures and installations. The market offers good opportunities for U.S. exporters of high-quality detection and screening systems, CCTV, sensors, biometric solutions, x-ray systems, and non-lethal weapons. For U.S. exporters of defense systems and components, Israel offers excellent market potential. Estimated total market size is $3.5 billion, with imports totaling $2.5 billion. Over 70 percent of the $5.3 billion local production is exported. Import of defense items from the United States amounts to approximately $2 billion. Many procurements are made with Foreign Military Financing (FMF), giving a distinct advantage to U.S. manufacturers, as FMF requirements call for 51-percent U.S. content in purchased equipment. Israel has a large and modern air force, successful international and regional airlines, hundreds of registered general aviation and sport aircraft, and an advanced aerospace industry. Israeli defense companies have developed and manufactured combat aircraft, business jets, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, space launchers, and satellites. Over the years, Israel has become a world leader in many aerospace fields. *Mission Goals:* The trade mission's goal is to provide market entry or increased sales in the mission markets for U.S. aerospace, defense and/or safety and security firms, as well as first-hand market information and access to potential business partners. *Mission Scenario:* The delegation will spend five days in Athens. In cooperation with CS Ankara and CS Istanbul, Turkish distributors, agents and other appropriate business partners will be invited to meet with the mission participants in Athens. Mission participants may participate in an optional mission stop in Tel Aviv, Israel, where the CS will arrange one-on-one appointments with potential Israeli customers and/or business partners and provide briefings on the Israeli market. Companies opting to stop first in Israel will pay Gold Key Service fees directly to CS Tel Aviv. In Greece, the U.S. Commercial Service will provide a market briefing highlighting opportunities in the aerospace, defense and/or safety and security sectors; schedule one-on-one appointments at the Defendory show site with potential Greek and Turkish business partners; participate in the Defendory hospitality events to introduce participants to key business and industry officials; provide interpreters as needed; and provide hotel/airport transfers for the mission participants. Criteria for Participation • Relevance of the company's business line to the mission's scope and goals. • Potential for business in the selected markets. • Timeliness of the company's completed application, participation agreement, and payment of the mission participation fee. • Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services and communication of the company's primary objectives to facilitate appropriate matching with potential business partners. • Certification that the firm's products and/or services are manufactured or produced in the United States or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product/service should be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service. Any partisan political activities of an applicant, including political contributions, will be entirely irrelevant to the selection process. Recruitment will be conducted on a first come-first served basis and will close approximately six weeks prior to the mission. The mission participation fee will be U.S. $3,000 per company. The rates for the Israel option are $735 for the first day of appointments and $360 for the second day of appointments. The participation fee does not include the cost of travel, lodging, and most meals. Participation is open to the first 10 qualified U.S. companies. Applications received after the recruitment deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. Contact Information *Aerospace/Defense:* Diane Mooney, Aerospace and Defense Project Manager, U.S. Commercial Service, Seattle, Washington 98121, Phone: 206-553-5615, ext. 236, *dmooney@mail.doc.gov.* *Safety and Security:* Suzette Nickle, Safety and Security Project Manager, U.S. Commercial Service, 1625 Broadway, Suite 680, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-844-6623 ext. 16, *suzette.nickle@mail.doc.gov.* Nancy Hesser, Phone: 202-482-4663 Nancy Hesser, Manager, Commercial Service Trade Missions, U.S. Commercial Service, International Trade Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5934 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-821] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov, 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)482-0665. Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand on August 9, 2004. See *Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand* , 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). On August 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). On August 31, 2007, KYD, Inc., a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review with respect to King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd. On August 31, 2007, The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation, the petitioner in this proceeding, also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review with respect to King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., Kor Ratthanakit Co., Ltd., Master Packaging Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. On September 25, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 54428, 54429 (September 25, 2007). On December 6, 2007, the Department decided to limit its examination of requested companies to King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Respondent Selection,” dated December 6, 2006. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 2, 2008. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 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 determination is published in the **Federal Register** . If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month. We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review by the current deadline of May 2, 2008. We received a below-cost allegation and are currently conducting a below-cost investigation for one of the respondents, which will require us to analyze and incorporate the information from recently filed submissions. Further, we require additional time to verify information submitted by certain respondents in this administrative review. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review by 60 days to July 1, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6062 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-819] Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon Farlander, 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)482-1174 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. Background On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (“pasta” or “subject merchandise”) from Italy. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). On July 3, 2007, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this countervailing duty order for calendar year 2006, the period of review (“POR”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the review on August 24, 2007, for the 2006 POR. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to 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 the final results of review 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. We are awaiting supplemental information from the respondents and the Government of Italy in this review. Because the Department will require additional time to review and analyze this supplemental information and may issue further supplemental questionnaires, it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by 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 19, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6053 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos and Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2243 and
(202)482-2312, respectively. Background On October 9, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of new shipper reviews of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam covering the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews,* 72 FR 57296 (October 9, 2007). The preliminary results of these new shipper reviews are currently due no later than March 24, 2008. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the day on which the review was initiated. *See also* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1). The Act further provides that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results The Department determines that these new shipper reviews involve extraordinarily complicated methodological issues such as the use of intermediate input methodology, potential affiliation issues, and the evaluation of the *bona fide* nature of each company's sales. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for these preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than July 22, 2008. The final results continue to be due 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6081 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Mission Statement AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice Mission Statement Medical Equipment Trade Mission to the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia, August 4-12, 2008 *Mission Description:* The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service is organizing a Medical Equipment Trade Mission to the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia from August 4 to 12, 2008. The mission provides an opportunity for U.S. firms to tap into lucrative, fast growing markets for U.S. medical equipment. The medical equipment sector in these countries is growing at an average 13 percent rate, and the United States remains a major source of medical equipment, with an average 28 percent market share. At each stop, the mission will include country briefings; individual business meetings with prospective agents, distributors, partners, and end-users; site visits; and networking functions with private companies and local government officials. *Commercial Setting—Philippines:* The Philippines medical industry is almost totally dependent on imports, and medical tourism to the Philippines continues to grow, offering many opportunities for U.S. sellers of medical equipment and instruments. Several hospitals are improving facilities and adapting new technologies to address demand from foreigners and returning residents. The United States claims an estimated 25 percent of the Philippines' $177 million import market for medical equipment, making it second only to China as the top supplier. U.S.-trained Filipino doctors prefer the high technology of American equipment, which justifies their higher costs. Best prospects include electromedical equipment, ultrasonic scanning machines, X-ray and radiation equipment, dialysis instruments and apparatus, and medical and surgical instruments. *Thailand:* The market for medical devices in Thailand grew by an estimated 15 percent in 2007. About 75 percent of medical devices in Thailand are imported, and the U.S. share is about 29 percent. Market growth in the next few years (2008 to 2010) will continue to derive mainly from the need to upgrade health care facilities and replace medical devices. Hospitals are promoting high-end equipment and specializations to attract more patients. Hospital equipment is imported and distributed by independent agents and/or distributors who also handle marketing, customs clearance, and product registration/import authorization. Best prospects include heart valves and artificial blood vessels, disposable diagnostic test kits, quick diagnostic testing devices, respiratory devices and oxygen therapy, rehabilitation equipment and accessories, orthopedic and implant devices and accessories, minimum invasive surgical devices, and neurosurgical and other surgical devices. *Malaysia:* The $1.4 billion Malaysian medical devices market is projected to grow at a rate of 10 percent in 2008. Ninety percent of medical devices are imported, and the U.S. import market share is 22 percent. An increasing patient population and focus on health care cost containment and preventative therapies influence demand for medical devices for cardiovascular, orthopedic, respiratory, ophthalmic, neurological, disposable, and infection control applications. The increasing senior population and modern lifestyle diseases are expected to boost demand for more affordable quality drugs and equipment. Plans for constructing new and replacement hospitals are under way. Promotion of health tourism is robust and includes developing health services in areas where Malaysia offers a comparative advantage, such as spas and cosmetic services. The Ministry of Tourism has unveiled a health tourism portal, and the government's ninth Malaysia Plan, for 2006-2010, includes proposals for four significant new health care programs. Best prospects include electromedical equipment, orthopedic appliances, and diagnostic and therapeutic radiation devices. *Mission Goals:* The mission will showcase U.S. medical equipment and technology to improve health care delivery in each country. The objective of the mission is to facilitate market entry and/or increase sales for U.S. suppliers of medical devices, as well as provide firsthand market information and access to potential business partners. *Mission Scenario:* The Commercial Service in Manila, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur will provide country briefings; customized, pre-arranged appointments with prospective partners, distributors, and end-users; meetings with appropriate host government agencies; and networking events with local officials and company representatives. The focus of the mission will be to match U.S. companies with pre-screened agents, distributors, buyers, and representatives in these markets. Criteria for Participation • Relevance of a company's business to mission goals. • Potential for business in the selected markets for the company. • Company must supply adequate information on its products/services, and on its market objectives, in order to facilitate appropriate matching with potential business partners. • Company's product or service must be either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service. • Timeliness of a company's signed application and participation agreement, including a participation fee of $3,500. This fee does not include travel, lodging, and most meals. Recruitment will be conducted on a first come-first served basis and will close July 11, 2008. Applications received after July 11 will be considered only if space and scheduling permit. *Contact:* Jennifer Loffredo, Global Health Care Technologies Team Leader. E-mail: *Jennifer.Loffredo@mail.doc.gov.* Telephone: 248-975-9600. Nancy Hesser, Manager, Commercial Service Trade Missions, U.S. Commercial Service, International Trade Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5933 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-918] Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that steel wire garment hangers (“hangers”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6905 or 482-1394, respectively. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Initiation On July 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of hangers from the PRC filed in proper form by M&B Metal Products (“Petitioner”) on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing hangers. This investigation was initiated on September 10, 2007. *See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 72 FR 52855 (September 17, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Additionally, in the *Initiation Notice* , the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (“NME”) investigations. *See Id* . 72 FR 52858-59. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. *See id.* ; *Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries* , (April 5, 2005), (“ *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities) has not changed. On October 5, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of steel wire garment hangers. The ITC's determination was published in the **Federal Register** on October 18, 2007. *See* Investigation No. 731-TA-1123 (Preliminary), *Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China* , 72 FR 59112 (October 18, 2007). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (July 31, 2007). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope Comments The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 52855. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, has not changed the scope as set forth in the *Initiation Notice* . Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that in recent NME investigations, it has been the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the petition for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 72 FR at 38816, 38821 (July 16, 2007); *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 43591, 43595 (August 6, 2007). However, for this investigation, because the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 7326.20.00.20, as discussed below in the “Scope of the Investigation,” provided comprehensive coverage of imports of steel wire garment hangers, the Department selected respondents in this investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data of U.S. imports under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.0020 from the POI. On October 16, 2007, the Department selected Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., (“Shanghai Wells”) and Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (“Shaoxing Gangyuan”) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. *See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik and Julia Hancock, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China* , (October 16, 2007) (“ *Respondent Selection Memo* ”). Surrogate Country Comments On October 2, 2007, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries* , (October 2, 2007) (“ *Surrogate Country List* ”). On October 17, 2007, the Department requested comments on the selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this investigation. On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed an extension request to submit surrogate country and factor valuation comments, which the Department extended until January 7, 2008. On January 7, 2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments requesting that India be selected as the appropriate surrogate country. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, *see* “Surrogate Country” section below. Surrogate Value Comments On January 7, 2008, Petitioner, Shanghai Wells, and Shaoxing Gangyuan submitted surrogate factor valuation comments. On January 17, 2008, Shaoxing Gangyuan submitted a rebuttal to Petitioner's surrogate factor value comments. Separate-Rates Applications Between October 9, 2007, and November 9, 2007, we received separate-rate applications from sixteen companies. 1 *See* the “Separate Rates” section below for the full discussion of the treatment of the separate-rate applicants. 1 The following companies filed separate-rate applications: Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.; Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co.; Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.; Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd., (collectively, “SRAs”). Questionnaires On September 10, 2007, the Department requested comments from all interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to be assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department received comments from Petitioner and Shaoxing Gangyuan. On October 16, 2007, the Department issued its section A portion of the NME questionnaire. On October 17, 2007, the Department issued its sections C and D portions of the NME questionnaire with product characteristics and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Wells and Shaoxing Gangyuan between November 2007 and February 2008, and received responses between December 2007 and March 2008. On November 27, 2007, the Department conducted a domestic plant tour of Petitioner's facility in Leeds, Alabama. *See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration* , (November 28, 2007). Postponement of Preliminary Determination On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to postpone the issuance of the preliminary determination by 50 days. On January 8, 2008, the Department informed all interested parties of its intent to postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifty days to March 18, 2008. On January 11, 2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on hangers from the PRC. *See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 73 FR 2004 (January 11, 2008) (“ *Prelim Extension FR* ”). 2 2 In the *Prelim Extension FR* , the Department incorrectly stated in footnote 2 that “190 days from the initiation date is actually March 17, 2008.” The Department intended to state that 190 days from the initiation date of September 10, 2007, is March 18, 2008. Scope of Investigation The merchandise that is subject to this investigation is steel wire garment hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper covers or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such as saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex (industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are classified under separate subheadings of the HTSUS. The products subject to this investigation are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.0020. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Non-Market-Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as an NME country. *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 52857. The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department investigates imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (“NV”), in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”) valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below. The Department's practice is explained in *Policy Bulletin 04.1* , 3 which states that “Per capita GNI 4 is the primary basis for determining economic comparability.” The Department considers the five countries identified in its *Surrogate Country List* as “equally comparable in terms of economic development.” *Id* . Thus, we find that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC. 3 *See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process* , (March 1, 2004), (“ *Policy Bulletin 04.1* ”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . 4 GNI stands for gross national income, which comprises GDP plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from nonresident sources. *See* , *e.g.* , *http://www.finfacts.com/ biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm* . Second, *Policy Bulletin 04.1* provides some guidance on identifying comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable merchandise. Specifically, the *Policy Bulletin 04.1* explains that “in cases where identical merchandise is not produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is comparable is produced.” *See Policy Bulletin 04.1* at 2. The Department obtained export data for steel wire garment hangers from the World Trade Atlas (“WTA”) and found that none of the countries on the *Surrogate Country List* produce or export identical merchandise. Thus, the Department determined which countries on the *Surrogate Country List* were producers of comparable merchandise. The Department obtained worldwide export data for steel wire products. 5 Specifically, we reviewed export data from the WTA for the HTS heading 7326.20, “Other Articles of Iron/Steel Wire,” for 2006. The Department found that, of the countries provided in the *Surrogate Country List* , all five countries were exporters of comparable merchandise: steel wire products. Thus, all countries on the *Surrogate Country List* are considered as appropriate surrogates because each exported comparable merchandise. 5 Because the Department was unable to find production data, we relied on export data as a substitute for overall production data in this case. The *Policy Bulletin 04.1* also provides some guidance on identifying significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable merchandise. Further analysis was required to determine whether any of the countries which produce comparable merchandise are significant' producers of that comparable merchandise. The data we obtained shows that, in 2006, worldwide exports for HTS 7326.20 from: India were approximately 4,884,412 kg; Indonesia were approximately 1,830,965 kg; Sri Lanka were approximately 244,223 kg; the Philippines were approximately 371,379 kg; and Egypt 6 were approximately 89,850 kg. We note that although Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are exporters of steel wire products, the quantities they exported do not qualify them as significant producers of the comparable merchandise. 7 Thus, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt are not being considered as appropriate surrogate countries. Additionally, although Indonesia appears to be a significant producer of comparable merchandise, India's percentage of exports of comparable merchandise at 66 percent of the total exports of the five countries far exceeds that of Indonesia's 25 percent. Finally, we have reliable data from India on the record that we can use to value the FOPs. Petitioner and both selected respondents submitted surrogate values using Indian sources, suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in India. 6 The worldwide export data from Egypt was obtained from the Global Trade Atlas since Egyptian export statistics are not available on WTA. 7 We note that, of the total export quantities obtained from world trade data, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt account for five percent, three percent, and one percent, respectively, of the total exports of comparable merchandise of all five countries on the *Surrogate Country List* . As noted above, the Department only received surrogate country comments from Petitioners, who favored selection of India. The Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on the basis that:
(1)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act;
(2)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Shanghai Wells' and Shaoxing Gangyuan's FOPs. *See Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination* , (March 18, 2008) (“ *Surrogate Value Memorandum* ”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. 8 8 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Affiliations Section 771(33) of the Act, provides that: The following persons shall be considered to be ‘affiliated’ or ‘affiliated persons’:
(A)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
(B)Any officer or director of an organization and such organization.
(C)Partners.
(D)Employer and employee.
(E)Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
(F)Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
(G)Any person who controls any other person and such other person. Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: “For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based on the evidence presented in Shaoxing Gangyuan's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Shaoxing Gangyuan is affiliated with Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (“Andrew”), Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (“Tongzhou”), and a fourth company, 9 pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and
(G)of the Act, based on ownership and common control. Furthermore, we find that they should be considered as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being affiliated, they have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling and there is a significant potential for manipulation of production based on the level of common ownership and control, shared management, and an intertwining of business operations. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed discussion of this issue, *see Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation Memo* . 9 The identity of this company is business proprietary information; for further discussion of this company, *see Memorandum to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Affiliations Memo of Shaoxing Gangyuan and its Affiliates* , (March 18, 2008)(“ *Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation Memo* ”). Because the Department finds that Shaoxing Gangyuan and its affiliates are a single entity, the Department is utilizing the integrated FOP database Shaoxing Gangyuan provided for purposes of the preliminary determination, which includes the FOPs from Andrew, Tongzhou, and the fourth company. Hereinafter, Shaoxing Gangyuan and its affiliates will be referred to as the “Shaoxing Metal Companies.” Separate Rates Additionally, in the *Initiation Notice* , the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See Initiation Notice* . The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. *See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries* , (April 5, 2005), (“ *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . 10 However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities) has not changed. 10 The *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , states: “{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied merchandise under consideration to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of "combination rates" because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.” *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* at 6. In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. As discussed fully below, all but one of the SRAs have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control and, therefore, satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. 11 11 All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate rate are hereby referred to collectively as the “PRC SR Recipients.” The Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise under consideration under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as further developed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. A. Separate Rate Recipients Wholly Foreign-Owned One separate rate company, Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Hongji”) reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy in its separate-rate application. *See* “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION” section below for the company marked with a “ ^ “ designating this company as wholly foreign-owned. Therefore, because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this company is independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to this company. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies Fifteen of the SRAs in this investigation stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these companies can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses;
(2)there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)and there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See* , *e.g.* , Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd., November 9, 2007, Separate Rate Application. b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices (“EP”) are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 & n.3 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a preliminary finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on the following:
(1)whether the EP is set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See* , *e.g.* , Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd., October 9, 2007, Separate-Rate Application. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the PRC SR Recipients demonstrate an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . *See* “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION” section below for companies marked with an “ * “ designating these companies as joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or wholly Chinese-owned companies that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate The Department is not granting a separate rate to the following SRA for the reasons discussed below. Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd. (“Hongtong”) was unable to demonstrate that it had sales of the merchandise under consideration to the United States. Upon reviewing Hongtong's separate-rates application and supplemental questionnaire response, we noted that Hongtong's reported U.S. sales were in fact sales to another PRC entity, an export agent that invoiced and received payment for merchandise sold to the United States. In NME proceedings, we do not examine sales prices between NME entities ( *e.g.* , transaction prices between an NME producer of the merchandise under consideration and the NME exporter of the merchandise under consideration) as NME countries are presumed to “not operate on market principles of cost or pricing structures so that the sales of merchandise in such countr{ies} do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise.” *See* section 771(18) of the Act. Accordingly, non-exporting NME producers of the merchandise under consideration are not eligible for examination as respondents. Based on Hongtong's description of the sales chain for the merchandise it produces, Hongtong was a producer and not an exporter of the merchandise under consideration during the POI and, therefore, is not eligible to receive a separate rate in this investigation. Companies Receiving a Separate Rate The Department has determined that PRC SR recipients 12 applying for a separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in fact and is, therefore, according separate rate status to these applicants. Additionally, because the Department has collapsed Andrew and Tongzhou, two of the SRAs with Shaoxing Gangyuan, their separate rate analysis will be conducted in conjunction with the analysis conducted for Shaoxing Gangyuan. 12 These companies are: Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd., Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. The Department also included Hongji in this list, though a separate rate analysis was not required (as stated above). PRC-Wide Entity Information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of hangers in the PRC. As stated above, the Department collected CBP data to select respondents based on imports of hangers classified under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.00.20. *See Respondent Selection Memo* . The Department selected Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies as mandatory respondents. Additionally, as stated above, sixteen companies, including the two companies collapsed with Shaoxing Gangyuan filed separate-rates applications, resulting in eighteen companies that are actively participating in this investigation. Upon receipt of the separate-rates applications, we examined the disaggregated 13 CBP data and determined that a significant number of exporters of hangers from the PRC during the POI were neither selected for review nor filed separate-rate applications, thus not active participants in this investigation. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of the merchandise under consideration from the PRC from CBP data, the volume of imports of the merchandise under consideration from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal Companies, and the SRAs, while accounting for a significant share, do not account for all imports into the United States. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there were PRC producers/exporters of the merchandise under consideration during the POI that did not apply for separate rates, thus establishing that there is a PRC-Wide entity with respect to this product. Therefore, consistent with the presumption of government control, we preliminarily determine that some exports of subject merchandise are from entities under the control of the PRC-Wide entity. The Department's presumption that these entries were subject to government control has not been rebutted, thus we preliminarily determine that these entries should be assessed a single PRC-Wide antidumping duty rate. As the single PRC-Wide rate, we have taken the simple average of:
(A)the weighted-average of the calculated rates of Shaoxing Metal Companies and Shanghai Wells and
(B)the simple average of the petition rates that fell within the range of Shaoxing Metal Companies' and Shanghai Wells' individual transaction margins. Accordingly, we determine that the single rate applicable to the PRC-Wide entity is 221.05 %%. The PRC-Wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation with the exception of those entries from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal Companies, and the PRC SR Recipients. 13 In this case, disaggregated data refers to exporter names in the CBP data, which appear to be duplicates albeit not combined for purposes of respondent selection. As a result, the CBP data showed many companies exported hangers to the United States during the POI, although the actual number of companies may be lower due to duplicate names in the CBP data. Separate-Rate Calculation The Department received timely and complete separate-rates applications from the PRC SR Recipients, who are all exporters of hangers from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, with the exception of Hongtong, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the “Separate Rates” section and in the *Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Calculation of the Separate Rate Weighted-Average Margin* , (March 18, 2008). Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for the PRC SR Recipients based on the rates we calculated for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies, excluding any rates that are zero, *de minimis* , or based entirely on adverse facts available (“AFA”). *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006) (“ *PSF* ”) unchanged in Final Determination. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, “in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.” However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *See also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (“ *Allied Tube* ”). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. *See Id.* , at 77377. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondents and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless the Department is satisfied that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. For instance, in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan* , 61 FR 14064, 14067-14068 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point. After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies. In *Allied Tube* , the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) found that a “party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy' the Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'” *Allied Tube* 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092. Here, the Department preliminarily determines that based on the information on the record, the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies. Each respondent has provided various examples of material changes to their purchase orders during the POI. *See* Shanghai Wells' Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response, dated February 7, 2008 and Shaoxing Metal Companies's Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response, dated February 1, 2008. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of steel wire garment hangers to the United States by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. U.S. Price A. EP In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. price for the Shaoxing Metal Companies's sales and certain Shanghai Wells' sales on EP because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and the use of constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and rebates from the gross unit price. We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where a PRC company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi. For details regarding our EP calculation, *see Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.* , (March 18, 2008) (“ *Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum* ”) and *Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis Memorandum* . B. CEP In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. price for certain Shanghai Wells' sales on CEP because these sales were made by Shanghai Wells' U.S. affiliate. 14 In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: marine insurance, discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, foreign movement expenses, and international freight, and United States movement expenses, including brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement expenses on either surrogate values, actual expenses, or an average of the two. For details regarding our CEP calculations, *see Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum* . 14 Shanghai Wells reported these sales as “indirect export price” (“IEP”). However, the Department finds that these IEP sales are, in fact, CEP sales because Shanghai Wells reported that its affiliate in the United States performed sales functions such as: sales negotiation, issuance of invoices and receipt of payment from the ultimate U.S. customer during the POI. Moreover, Shanghai Wells reported expenses incurred in the United States that are normally deducted from the gross unit price. *See* Shanghai Wells Questionnaire Responses dated November 13, 2007, December 7, 2007, and March 4, 2008; *see also Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007) unchanged in Final Results (where the Department stated that “we based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by Nantong Donchang's U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {“Wavort”} to unaffiliated purchasers.”); *AK Steel Corp., et al v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. *See e.g.* , *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006) (“ *CLPP* ”) unchanged in Final Determination. As the basis for NV, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies provided FOPs used in each stage for processing steel wire garment hangers, *i.e.* , from the drawing of the steel wire to completion of the final product. Additionally, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies reported that they are integrated producers because both respondents draw the steel wire from the steel wire rod and provided the FOP information used in this production stage. Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, it is the Department's practice to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to produce the merchandise under consideration. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(E). If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For example, in a previous case, one shrimp respondent was a fully integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and processing FOPs because this company bore all the costs related to growing the shrimp. *See id* . In this case, we are valuing those inputs reported by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies that were used to produce the main input to the processing stage (steel wire) when calculating NV, regardless of whether the FOPs were produced or purchased by the respondents. Factor Valuation Methodology In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the *Surrogate Value Memorandum* and company-specific analysis memoranda. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials). In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources, represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. *See* , *e.g. PSF* at 77380 and *CLPP* at 19704. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized because we have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590
(1988)reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; *see also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) unchanged in final determination. Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. *See id* . Additionally, during the POI, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies purchased all or a portion of certain inputs from a market economy supplier and paid for the inputs in a market economy currency. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight-average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. *See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments* , 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006). Accordingly, we valued the Shaoxing Metal Companies' inputs using the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POI exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during that period. Alternatively, when the volume of the Shaoxing Metal Companies' purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the POI was below 33 percent of the company's total volume of purchases of the input during the POI, we weight-averaged the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, as appropriate. *See* Shaoxing Metal Companies' Questionnaire Responses dated December 10, 2007, and January 8, 2008. Where appropriate, we increased the market economy prices of inputs by freight and brokerage and handling expenses. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . For a detailed description of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, *see Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum* and *Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis Memorandum* . Additionally, Shanghai Wells reported a market-economy purchase of an input which the Department preliminarily finds that there is reason to believe or suspect the price paid for this input may be subsidized. Therefore, because the Department's practice is to exclude prices that are dumped or subsidized, the Department has calculated the value for this input using a surrogate value derived from Indian Import Statistics, rather than the purchase price paid. *See* , *e.g.* , * Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 69 FR 75913 (December 20, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; *see also Surrogate Value Memorandum* and *Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum* . The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies used to produce the merchandise under consideration during the POI, except where listed below. To value electricity, the Department used rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency (“IEA”). Additionally, to value diesel, the Department used data from Key World Energy Statistics 2005, published by IEA. Because the data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . For liquefied petroleum gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from Bharat Petroleum 15 , published on October 3, 2005. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 37703, 37710 (July 11, 2007); *see also Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007). Because the data was not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . 15 www.bharatpetroleum.com/general/gen_petroprices.asp. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . Because water is essential to the production process of the merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate value according to our practice. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *www.midcindia.org* ) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from *www.infreight.com* . This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India using data from October 2005 to March 2006, because data from the POI was unavailable. The Department obtained a price quote from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. Consistent with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by *www.infreight.com* to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . The Department used four sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. The sources are from Essar Steel Ltd., Agro Dutch Industries Ltd., Kerjiwal Paper, and Navneet Publication. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* . To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the data from the audited financial statements from the 2006-2007 Annual Report of Lakshmi Precision Screws, Ltd. (“Lakshmi”). While this company produces comparable rather than identical merchandise, Lakshmi uses an integrated wire-drawing production process with steel wire rod as the main input, which closely mirrors that of the mandatory respondents. Specifically, the straightening, cutting, and forming process of screws is similar to that of hangers. While Petitioner provided an additional source for surrogate financial ratios using the financial statements of Usha Martin Ltd. (“Usha”), and Shanghai Wells provided the surrogate financial statements of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (“G&B”), we find that neither Usha nor G&B use a production process that mirrors the manufacture of hangers as closely as screws. To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data fully contemporaneous with the POI for 6mm and 8mm steel wire rod available on the website of the Indian Joint Plant Committee (“JPC”). The JPC is a joint industry/government board that monitors Indian steel prices. These data are publicly available, specific to the input in question, represent a broad market average, and are tax-exclusive. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Combination Rates In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR 52859. This change in practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.rates. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC - Dumping Margins Exporter & Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. ^ 33.85 %% Shaoxing Metal Companies: * Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Company “X” 164.54 %% Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd ^ 83.98 %% Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * 83.98 %% Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. * 83.98 %% PRC-Wide Rate 16 221.05 %% 16 The PRC-Wide entity includes Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co. Ltd. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of steel wire garment hangers from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Shanghai Wells, Shaoxing Metal Companies, the PRC SR Recipients and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows:
(1)The rate for the firms listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination;
(2)for all non-PRC exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter in the combination listed above, that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of steel wire garment hangers, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 18, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6079 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-830] Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany manufactured by Flanschenwerk Bebitz GmbH (“Flanschenwerk”). The period of review (“POR”) covers March 1, 2007, through August 31, 2007. This order was revoked as a result of a sunset proceeding and the effective date of revocation is prior to the U.S. entry made by Flanschenwerk subject to this new shipper review. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, 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)482-0182. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2002, the Department published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany* , 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) (“ *Investigation Final* ”). On October 10, 2003, the Department published an amended antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom* , 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 2003). On October 1, 2007, we received a request for a new shipper review from Flanschenwerk for the period March 1, 2007, through August 31, 2007. We initiated the review on October 26, 2007. *See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany* , 72 FR 60807 (October 26, 2007). On December 20, 2007, Flanschenwerk responded to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire. On February 1, 2007, the Department initiated, and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) instituted, a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 4689 (February 1, 2007). As a result of its sunset review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. *See Stainless Steel Bar from Germany; Final Results of the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 56985 (October 5, 2007). On January 31, 2008, the ITC determined that revocation of the order on stainless steel bar from Germany would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and The United Kingdom* , 73 FR 5869 (January 31, 2008) and USITC Publication 3981 (January 2008), entitled *Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-413 and 731-TA-913-916 & 918 (Review)). As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of the order on stainless steel bar from Germany is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), revoked the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom and the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar From Italy* , 73 FR 7258 (February 7, 2008) (“ *Stainless Steel Bar Revocation Notice* ”). As a result of the ITC's vote to revoke the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany on January 8, 2008, Flanschenwerk submitted an extension request, also on January 8, 2008, for filing its Sections B and C questionnaire responses until the Department published its revocation notice of this order. On March 17, 2008, Flanschenwerk withdrew its new shipper review request. Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar (“SSB”) includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Rescission of Review Flanschenwerk's POR U.S. entry occurred after the effective date of revocation of the order, which was March 7, 2007. Further, the Department has already issued its revocation instructions to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which will liquidate this entry without regard to antidumping duties ( *i.e.* , release all bonds and refund all cash deposits, with interest). *See Stainless Steel Bar Revocation Notice* . Because Flanschenwerk has no additional U.S. entries to review during the POR, we are rescinding this new shipper review. No liquidation instructions are necessary because the Department has already issued its revocation instructions, which will result in the liquidation of Flanschenwerk's U.S. entry. In addition, because this order is now revoked, no cash deposit instructions are necessary. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3). Dated: March 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-6042 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration International Trade Administration Mission Statement AGENCY: Department of Commerce, ITA. ACTION: Notice. Mission Statement U.S. Health Care Trade Policy Mission to China, April 24-25, 2008. *Mission Description:* The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration
(ITA)is organizing a Health-Care Trade Mission to China, April 23-25, 2008. The trade mission will focus on market access and target a broad range of health-care industries, such as the pharmaceutical, medical device, health insurance and health services industries, and will be led by Under Secretary of Commerce Christopher A. Padilla. ITA seeks to provide participating U.S. companies an opportunity to meet with key officials in China's health ministries to discuss the direction and structure of China's upcoming health-care reforms. The mission will likely take the form of 3-4 meetings between the delegation and China's Ministry of Health, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (formerly Ministry of Labor and Social Security), National Development and Reform Commission and possibly the Ministry of Finance or State Food and Drug Administration (subject to availability). In addition to these meetings, the agenda will include a preparatory meeting between the delegation and the Under Secretary. *Commercial Setting:* This Trade Mission will take place following China's planned announcement in late March outlining significant changes to its financing, regulation, and management of its health-care system. The U.S. pharmaceutical, medical device, health insurance and health services industries currently have many market access concerns with China, but the potential impact of the pending health-care reforms are the leading concern of many U.S. companies. The reforms China will undertake have the potential to significantly alter the market for U.S. health goods and services. Industry's ability to engage with the Government of China on these reforms has been limited so far, and while it is understood that an outline of the reforms will be announced in March, industry still lack details and a forum to engage with key Chinese policy makers. This trade mission will provide that opportunity. This mission builds on previous DOC engagement with China's health ministries under the auspices of the U.S.-China Health-Care Forum (HCF). The mission will supplement HCF cooperation between DOC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and China's Ministry of Health and Ministry of Commerce. *Overview of China's Health Reform Situation:* China has made improving health-care access to its citizens a priority in its Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006-2010). China will announce reforms to improve the services provided by China's health-care system, increase the number of insured citizens, reduce corruption and perverse profit incentives, and reduce the overall costs to the consumer. While details are not yet available, Chinese press and U.S. industry anticipate that reforms will lay out a plan for universal health coverage, will institute new health-care delivery systems, will reform hospital management and will change the way drugs are regulated. We expect the outline of the plan to be announced at the meeting of the National People's Congress in March. The overall proposal is expected to focus only on principles and general direction, be supported by eight more detailed supplemental reform proposals and be implemented through a series of pilot programs. All of these pending reforms present a serious change in the market for U.S. health goods and services providers. U.S. health-care goods and services providers with a clear understanding of China's policy environment have the potential to influence the policy direction and take advantage of what may be a dramatically growing Chinese health-care market. *Mission Goals:* The trade mission will facilitate dialogue between the U.S. health-care industry and Chinese policymakers to assist mission participants in gaining first-hand information about China's upcoming health-care reforms and provide a forum for U.S. stakeholders to provide feedback to relevant Chinese Government ministries to encourage policy choices that increase market access for U.S. goods and services. The trade mission also will assist ITA in identifying areas of interest to China for future cooperation on these market access issues. Summary of Results Expected From the Mission • Improve U.S. health-care industries' understanding of the pending health-care reforms in China. • Discover areas of interest to China where future cooperation with U.S. Government and industry could further improve market access for U.S. goods and services. • Provide Chinese policymakers with U.S. industry feedback on the direction of the reforms. • Introduce U.S. industry to China's new leadership. *Mission Scenario:* In China, the International Trade Administration will: • Organize a preparatory meeting between the delegation, the Under Secretary, and key U.S. Embassy officials. • Schedule 3-4 meetings with key Government of China ministries. (Subject to the availability of officials in the relevant ministries.) Proposed Mission Timetable Wednesday, April 23 Trade Mission Delegation Dinner with the Under Secretary. Thursday, April 24-Friday, April 25 Meeting with the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Health. Meeting with the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. Meeting with the Vice Minister of the National Development and Reform Commission. Meeting with the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Finance (Time permitting). Criteria for Participation • Relevance of the company's business line to the mission scope and goals; • Potential for business in the selected markets; • Timeliness of the company's completed application, participation agreement, and payment of the mission participation fee; • Certification that the company's products and/or services are manufactured or produced in the United States or, if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the products/services must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished goods or services; • Diversity of health-care sectors represented; and • Rank/seniority of the designated company representative. Any partisan political activities of an applicant, including political contributions, will be entirely irrelevant to the selection process. The mission will be promoted through the following venues: ITA's Export Assistance Centers, the Health and Consumer Goods team, the Service Industries team, the Asia Pacific Team, the Trade Events List *http://www.export.gov;* the **Federal Register** ; relevant trade associations; past Commerce health-care policy event participants; and the Commerce Department trade missions calendar: *http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html.* Recruitment will begin immediately and will close on April 1, 2007. The trade mission participation fee will be U.S. $1,250 per company. Each participating organization will be allowed to send only one representative. The participation fee does not include the cost of travel, lodging, some ground transportation, or some meals. Participation is open to 15 qualified U.S. companies. Invited companies must submit the trade mission participation fee and completed participation agreement within one week of receipt of their invitation in order to secure their place in the mission. After that time, other companies may be invited to fill that spot. Applications received after the closing date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Cino, U.S. Department of Commerce, e-mail: *anthony_cino@ita.doc.gov* , telephone: 202-482-5679, facsimile: 202-482-2266. Anthony Cino, Office of the Chinese Economic Area, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E8-5935 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of Inventions Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inventions available for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned in whole or in part by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. The U.S. Government's interest in these inventions is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on these inventions may be obtained by writing to: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Technology Partnerships, Attn: Mary Clague, Building 222, Room A155, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Information is also available via telephone: 301-975-4188, fax 301-975-3482, or e-mail: *mary.clague@nist.gov.* Any request for information should include the NIST Docket number and title for the invention as indicated below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The inventions available for licensing are: [NIST DOCKET NUMBER: 7-003] *Title:* Highly Charged Ion Modified Oxides (HCIMO) for Tunable Resistance. *Abstract:* Highly Charged Ion Modified Oxides (HCIMO) are achieved by irradiating a thin, high resistance oxide with highly charged ions
(HCIs)and then depositing a conducting material of choice on top the irradiated oxide. The irradiation by HCIs preferentially ablates a region on the order of a cubic nanometer at each HCI's impact site breaking a hole through the ultra-thin oxide. This is demonstrated by preparing an insulating layer of aluminum oxide on a cobalt lower electrode layer, exposing the oxide to very dilute HCI radiation, and then depositing a cobalt upper layer. The data show a clear and systematic decrease in the resistance of the multilayer devices correlated to the HCI dose at very dilute doses. The nanometer dimensions of individual HCI impacts and the precise control over the dose combine to allow high precision selection of the material's resistance over a wide range of values, currently demonstrated over three orders of magnitude. As HCI modification only occurs within a few nanometers of the surface and generally does not affect metals, no special measures are needed to protect surrounding device structures from HCI damage. Since the size of the material modification is determined by the properties of a single ion, precise alignment is not required, only uniform illumination of the device area by the HCI beam, greatly simplifying commercial integration of HCI irradiation. [NIST DOCKET NUMBER: 7-008] *Title:* A Four-Wave Mixing Source of Squeezed Light for Image Processing and Interferometry *Abstract:* The invention provides a source of squeezed light, generated using a 4-level, four-wave mixing scheme in rubidium vapor. Strong relative-number squeezing between two beams has been demonstrated; much stronger than previously seen in any four-wave mixing system. The scheme relies on a chi(3) nonlinearity, and a single-pass, no-cavity, experimental implementation which has relaxed phase matching requirements, as compared to chi(2) crystal sources, and easily produces squeezing in multiple spatial modes. Dated: March 18, 2008. Richard F. Kayser, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-6029 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG61 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject programmatic Exempted Fishing Permit
(EFP)application for the Study Fleet Program contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. Study Fleet projects are managed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and funded under the Northeast Cooperative Research Partners Program (NCRPP) contracts and Research Set-Aside
(RSA)grants to regional institutions. The programmatic EFP would grant exemptions from minimum fish size and possession and landing limits. However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to issue a programmatic EFP that would allow up to 30 vessels to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *StudyFleetEFP@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on NEFSC Study Fleet Programmatic EFP.” Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on NEFSC Study Fleet Programmatic EFP.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile
(fax)to
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9218, fax: 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP would programmatically exempt federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from the regulations detailed below participating in the Study Fleet Program and operating under projects managed by the NEFSC and funded by NCRPP contracts and Research-Set-Aside
(RSA)grants. The programmatic EFP would cover two tiers of exemptions. The first tier would exempt vessels operators and technicians from minimum size and possession limits for the time it takes to weigh and measure fish that would otherwise be discarded. The second tier would exempt vessels from minimum size and possession and landing limits of otherwise prohibited fish. The programmatic EFP would cover the following Study Fleet projects, the vessels associated with such projects, and the study fleet technicians and vessel operators:
(1)NEFSC - NCRPP Groundfish Fleet Northern (three vessels) and Southern (two vessels) trawlers, with up to five additional vessels.
(2)NEFSC - Groundfish/ *Loligo* Fleet (three vessels, up to three additional vessels).
(3)NEFSC - University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) - Cooperative Marine Education and Research
(CMER)Southern New England
(SNE)Yellowtail Flounder Fleet (three vessels).
(4)NEFSC - Gulf of Maine Research Institute
(GMRI)- Monkfish Fleet (up to five vessels).
(5)SMAST - Georges Bank
(GB)Multispecies Fleet (five vessels). A project- and vessel-specific EFP, detailing all vessels involved in each the projects, would be granted to each vessel to facilitate this research. The EFP would specify under which restrictions and exemptions the vessel would be required to operate. The Tier 1 EFP would specify that the retention of otherwise prohibited fish is temporary only, and fish must be returned to the sea as quickly as possible, after weighing and measuring. The Tier 2 EFP would specify the limited amounts of otherwise prohibited fish that could be retained and landed. The following table details the regulations that the participating vessels would be exempted from, and the number of at-sea days that vessels would be permitted to operate under the exemptions: Study Fleet Project # of Vessels Discard Sampling at-sea days (Technician) Discard Sampling at-sea days (Crew/Captain) Biological Sampling at-sea days (Technician) Biological Sampling at-sea days (Crew/Captain) Exempted Regulations in 50 CFR part 648 NEFSC/NRCPP Groundfish Fleet up to 10 100 50 0 March - April samples 4-6 totes whole haddock § 648.83(a)(3) NE multispecies minimum size Possession limits § 648.86(b) Atlantic cod § 648.86(c) Atlantic halibut § 648.86(e) White hake § 648.86(g) Yellowtail flounder § 648.86(j) GB winter flounder NEFSC Groundfish/ *Loligo* up to 6 60 30 60 0 All of the above, plus, if during closure of directed fishery, § 648.22(c) Incidental possession limit of *Loligo* NEFSC/SMAST/CMER SNE Yellowtail Flounder 3 30 90 30 Monthly totes at least 100 fish each § 648.83(a)(3) NE multispecies minimum size § 648.86(g)(1) SNE Yellowtail flounder possession limit NEFSC/GMRI Monkfish 5 80 160 80 0 § 648.93 Monkfish minimum fish size § 648.94 Monkfish possession limit SMAST GB Groundfish 5 50 0 50 0 Same as NEFSC/ NRCPP Groundfish Fleet Project Tier 1 The first aspect of the project would temporarily exempt the Study Fleet vessels from all minimum size and possession limits for the time it takes to measure and weigh otherwise prohibited fish. This exemption would allow NEFSC to understand the issues that affect the accuracy of estimated discard weights and to improve analyses. The protocol under which the NEFSC staff and the vessel operators would conduct these measurements is not significantly different than the protocol currently used by NMFS-certified observers. Under this protocol, no other change to normal commercial fishing operators would occur. Initially, NEFSC or partner Study Fleet technicians would be onboard the vessels to provide data entry training and to observe and report on sorting and discarding practices under normal fishing operations. On some subsequent trips, technicians would sort, weigh, and measure fish that are to be discarded, in a method that is consistent with current NEFSC observer protocols. An exemption is required because some discarded species would be on deck slightly longer than under normal sorting procedures. The goal is to identify sorting routines that would minimally impact the duration of catch processing, and technicians would return the fish to the water as soon as possible. On other trips, the vessel operators and crew would be responsible for sorting, weighing, and measuring the fish that are to be discarded from a random number of tows and trips, following the established protocol. These crew and operators would be trained in the protocol by the NEFSC or partner Study Fleet technicians and would return the fish to the water as soon as possible. Tier 2 The second aspect of the programmatic EFP for the Study Fleet would allow more in-depth biological sampling to occur on various ages of fish by exempting vessels from minimum size, possession, and landing limits of species of interest. Some of the biological sampling would be done by a Study Fleet technician during a trip, as available during normal commercial fishing operations. That is, while a crew member is dressing a fish for storage, the Study Fleet technician would collect the stomach and gonads of that fish for later research. For this tier, vessels would be exempted from minimum size requirements and possession and landing limits, as applicable, in very limited circumstances. Vessel operators on specified trips, using marked totes, would collect fish to be provided to the NEFSC for biological sampling only. Project-specific biological sampling to obtain maturity, fecundity, age, and growth data would require a separate EFP for possession and sampling of species of interest, including undersized individuals, possibly in excess of trip limits, where samples may be processed at sea or retained for delivery to research facilities on shore by the Study Fleet vessels. The current interest in enhanced biological sampling is in response to initial Study Fleet goals endorsed by the NCRPP and the New England Fishery Management Council's Research Steering Committee. The initial biological sampling program and protocol development would focus on obtaining haddock and yellowtail flounder samples to evaluate maturity and fecundity patterns that may be affected by recent strong year classes. Samples of large monkfish, large cod, and other species would be used to fill in gaps in port-based sampling. See below for detailed descriptions of catch estimates for each of the five Study Fleet projects. A small number of live fish would also be collected to support laboratory studies in survival. Sampling would be done by NEFSC or partner Study Fleet technicians and by trained crew members. On trips where the technicians would be on board, standard NEFSC sampling protocols would be followed. None of the landed biological samples from these trips would be sold. On trips where technicians would not be on board, select vessel operators or crew would separate fish to be sampled by technicians in port. The EFP for biological sampling would allow fishermen to retain specified amounts of specific species in whole or round weight condition, including some undersized individuals, in marked totes, which would be delivered to Study Fleet technicians or local NMFS port agents for enumeration and measurement. It is anticipated that these whole fish may cause a vessel to exceed a regulatory trip limit. The EFP would exempt the vessels from the trip limits in limited situations so that the vessel is not disadvantaged when collecting biological samples. NMFS would receive advance notification of specific plans for retention under this EFP. This notification would provide the vessel name and vessel operator, the number of marked totes that would be delivered, an estimate of the number of undersized individuals that would be retained, and an estimated time frame for the sampling trips. The amount of fish delivered to the Study Fleet technicians would not exceed five totes, or 700 lb (317.51 kg) per trip. Vessels fishing under this EFP would be required to call into the Interactive Voice Response system to identify the trip, following the standard EFP protocol. Each of the biological sampling projects is detailed below. Please see the table above for details on the regulations that would be exempted. The NEFSC Groundfish and Groundfish and *Loligo* projects would involve sampling seven species on a maximum of 20 trips with technicians aboard. This sampling would not affect trip limits because the undersized fish would be discarded at sea. The estimated maximum discard weight of sampled sub-legal fish is 4,000 lb (1,814.37kg) per species per trip (100 lengths X 20 trips = 2,000 individuals X mean weight of 2 lb (0.91 kg) = 4,000 lb (1,814.37 kg) per species), not to exceed 8,000 lb (3628.74 kg) per species per trip if two statistical areas are sampled on the same trip. Also under the NEFSC Groundfish project, GB haddock maturity and fecundity data would be collected. NEFSC is requesting an EFP to collect one tote of undersized haddock for sampling. The vessels would deliver up to five totes of fish (600 lb, 272.16 kg), four of which would contain legal sized fish, and one of which would contain undersized fish. The fish would be whole and iced. The total amount of GB haddock that would be authorized under this EFP would not exceed 1,300 lb (589.67 kg). NEFSC staff would meet the captain at the dock to collect the fish. None of the fish would be sold. The NEFSC/SMAST/CMER SNE Yellowtail Flounder project would obtain 100 yellowtail flounder per month during the April through August spawning period on three vessels, up to 1,500 fish total, followed by non-spawning month sampling for 7 months at 25 fish per month per vessel, for up to an additional 525 fish. The resulting length frequency and maturity sampling would account for approximately 2,025 undersized yellowtail flounder, or 2,500 lb (1133.98 kg). The GMRI Monkfish project would require the biological sampling EFP to allow fishermen to retain the entire monkfish catch on the last tow for two trips per month for eight months on five vessels, resulting in 80 separate samples, not to exceed 550 lb (249.48 kg) of monkfish per sample. Each sample would be delivered to a GMRI sampler. Legal sized fish would be allowed to be sold by the vessel, but undersized fish would be retained by GMRI. It is estimated that the amount of undersized fish for the 80 samples would not exceed 4,800 lb (2177.24 kg). The SMAST GB Groundfish project is requesting the following under the biological sampling EFP: Up to 100 monkfish (750 lb, 340.19 kg) for age and growth, not to exceed 20 monkfish (150 lb, 68.04 kg) per trip; 50 whole skates (150 lb, 68.04 kg), not to exceed 10 (30 lb, 13.61 kg) per trip; and, 10 cod (100 lb, 45.36 kg), not to exceed 2 (20 lb, 9.07 kg) per trip. In addition, 100 lengths of kept fish and 100 lengths of discarded fish of each of the following species would be collected: Cod, winter flounder, grey sole, yellowtail flounder, haddock, monkfish, and American plaice. The applicant may make requests to NMFS for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted by NMFS without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate NEPA document would be completed prior to the issuance of the EFP. Further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. After publication of this document in the **Federal Register** , the EFP, if approved, may become effective following a 15-day public comment period. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 20, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-6009 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG39 Endangered Species; File No. 1614-01 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for modification. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region, Protected Resources Division [Responsible Party: Mary Colligan], One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1614. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: The modification request 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)427-2520; Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted 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 modification request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2520, 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. 1614-01. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Belmas or Jennifer Skidmore, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification to Permit No. 1614, issued on February 28, 2008 (73 FR 11873), is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). Permit No. 1614 authorizes the permit holder to collect, receive and transport 100 dead shortnose sturgeon, or parts thereof, annually. In the case of an unusual mortality event, takes may be increased from 100 up to 1,000 animals with written approval from the Director, Office of Protected Resources. Researchers are also authorized the receipt and transport of up to 50 captive bred, dead shortnose sturgeon annually from any U.S. facility authorized to hold captive sturgeon. This permit authorizes the conduct of the aforementioned research over a period of five years. The permit holder requests authorization to increase the number of dead captive bred shortnose sturgeon received annually to 350 individuals throughout the remainder of the permit. This request stems from the probable availability of a greater number of dead captive bred shortnose sturgeon than was originally anticipated. The applicant would like to obtain these sturgeon to help meet the objectives of their current research, including reviewing research procedures and developing necropsy protocols for shortnose sturgeon. Dated: March 19, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5937 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF88 Incidental Take of Marine Mammals; Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Conducting Precision Strike Weapons Testing and Training by Eglin Air Force Base in the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a letter of authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given that a letter of authorization
(LOA)to take four species of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to testing and training during Precision Strike Weapons
(PSW)tests in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), a military readiness activity, has been issued to Eglin Air Force Base (AFB). DATES: This authorization is effective from March 19, 2008, through March 18, 2009. ADDRESSES: The application and LOA are available for review in the Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by contacting one of the individuals mentioned below (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead or Candace Nachman, NMFS,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs NMFS to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. Authorization, in the form of annual LOAs, may be granted for periods up to five years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to PSW testing and training within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the GOM, were published on November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67810), and remain in effect from December 26, 2006, through December 27, 2011. The four species that Eglin AFB may take in small numbers during PSW testing and training are Atlantic bottlenose dolphins ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), Atlantic spotted dolphins ( *Stenella frontalis* ), dwarf sperm whales ( *Kogia simus* ), and pygmy sperm whales ( *Kogia breviceps* ). Issuance of the annual LOA to Eglin AFB is based on findings made in the preamble to the final rule that the total takings by this project would result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks or habitats and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals. NMFS also finds that the applicant will meet the requirements contained in the implementing regulations and LOA, including monitoring and reporting requirements. Without any mitigation measures, a small possibility exists for one bottlenose dolphin and one spotted dolphin to be exposed to blast levels from the PSW testing sufficient to cause mortality. Additionally, less than two cetaceans might be exposed to noise levels sufficient to induce Level A harassment (injury) annually, and as few as 31 or as many as 52 cetaceans (depending on the season and water depth) could potentially be exposed (annually) to noise levels sufficient to induce Level B harassment in the form of temporary (auditory) threshold shift (TTS). While none of these impact estimates consider the proposed mitigation measures that will be employed by Eglin AFB to minimize potential impacts to protected species, NMFS has authorized Eglin AFB a total of one mortality, two takes by Level A harassment, and 53 takes by Level B harassment (temporary auditory threshold shift) annually. However, the proposed mitigation measures described in the final rule (71 FR 67810, November 24, 2006) and the LOA are anticipated to reduce potential impacts to marine mammals in both numbers and degree of severity. These measures include a conservative safety range for marine mammal exclusion; incorporation of aerial and shipboard survey monitoring efforts in the program both prior to and after detonation of explosives; and a prohibition on detonations whenever marine mammals are detected within the safety zone, may enter the safety zone at the time of detonation, or if weather and sea conditions preclude adequate aerial surveillance. This LOA may be renewed annually based on a review of the activity, completion of monitoring requirements, and receipt of reports required by the LOA. Summary of Request NMFS received a request for a LOA pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to PSW testing and training in the GOM. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the Current LOA In 2007, only one Focused Lethality Munition, a low collateral variant of the Small Diameter Bomb, was released over the GOM on July 11, 2007. It was a single release of a Guided Test Vehicle
(GTV)with an inert fuse. The GTV has no explosives. Because it was not a live PSW test and did not have any impacts to protected species, a survey plan was not included in Eglin AFB's report. The Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile program had no activity in 2007. Authorization The U.S. Air Force complied with the requirements of the 2007 LOA, and NMFS has determined that there was no take of marine mammals by the U.S. Air Force in 2007. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a LOA to Eglin AFB authorizing the take by harassment of marine mammals incidental to PSW testing and training in the EGTTR in the GOM. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 67810, November 24, 2006) and supported by information contained in Eglin's 2008 request for a new LOA that the activities described under this LOA will not result in more than the incidental harassment of certain marine mammal species and will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this action. Dated: March 19, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5938 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0113] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Acquisition of Helium AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0113). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning acquisition of helium. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 67919 on December 3, 2007. No comments were received. This OMB clearance currently expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. William Clark, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)219-1813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose The Helium Act (Pub. L. 86-777) (50 U.S.C. 167, *et seq.* ) and the Department of the Interior’s regulations (43 CFR part 3195) on purchase of helium are implemented in the FAR at Subpart 8.5. The FAR requires contractors to purchase major helium requirements from Federal helium suppliers, to the extent that supplies are available. In addition, the Contractor is required to provide the Contracting Officer the following data within 10 days after the Contractor or subcontractor receives a delivery of helium from a Federal helium supplier:
(1)The name of the supplier;
(2)The amount of helium purchased;
(3)The delivery date(s); and
(4)The location where the helium was used. The information is used in administration of certain Federal contracts to ensure contractor compliance with contract clauses. The contracting officer must forward the information to the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)within 45 days of the close of each fiscal quarter. The quarterly reports will help BLM verify refined helium sales made to Federal agencies by Federal helium suppliers. Without the information, the required use of Federal helium suppliers cannot be monitored and enforced effectively. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 26. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Total Responses:* 26. *Hours Per Response:* 1. *Total Burden Hours:* 26. *Obtaining Copies of Proposals:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium, in all correspondence. Dated: March 17, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5924 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Notice Extending the Deadline Date for Transmittal of Part II Applications and the Deadline Date for Intergovernmental Review for the Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies
(LEAs)Program for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.060A.* SUMMARY: On December 19, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 71880) a notice inviting applications for Part I and Part II of the Formula Grant Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE). The December 19, 2007 notice established an April 4, 2008 deadline date for eligible applicants to apply for funding under Part II of the Formula Grants to LEAs program, and provided that applications or data submissions under Part II would be accepted only from those eligible applicants who met the Part I deadline of January 31, 2008. We are extending the Part II application deadline date to April 23, 2008, for those eligible applicants who met the Part I deadline of January 31, 2008. The change in the deadline date for Part II applications is due to the unavailability of the application system for Part II during the dates published in the **Federal Register** . As a result of this extension of the deadline date for Part II applications, we also are extending the intergovernmental review period required under Executive Order 12372 to July 23, 2008. Applicants must refer to the Application Notice for all other requirements concerning this program. DATES: *Part II of Formula Grant EASIE Applications Available:* March 21, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Part II Applications:* April 23, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* July 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the ED *Facts* Partner Support Center, telephone: 877-457-3336 (877-HLP-EDEN) or by e-mail at: *eden_OIE@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the ED *Facts* Partner Support Center, toll free, at 1-888-403-3336 (888-403-EDEN). Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the EDFacts Partner Support Center. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applications for Part II of the Formula Grants to LEAs program must be submitted electronically through the Formula Grant EASIE unless you do not have Internet access and have made prior arrangements with the Department. For approval to submit a paper application, you must contact the ED *Facts* Partner Support Center (see the contact information listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) prior to the deadline for transmittal of Part II applications. If you are approved to submit a paper application, you must meet the transmittal deadlines included in this notice. Part II, Program and Budget Information, provides your award amount based on the Indian student count total submitted under Part I. Part II also enables you to enter student performance data, identify your project's services and activities, and build a realistic program budget based on a known grant amount. Based on student assessment data, you will select your program objectives and services from a variety of menu options that were designed with grantee input. Electronic Access to This Document You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7421 *et seq.* Dated: March 20, 2008. Kerri L. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-6064 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—State Technical Assistance Projects To Improve Services and Results for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.326C. DATES: *Applications Available:* March 25, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* April 24, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* June 23, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results For Children With Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research. *Priority:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 *et seq.* ). *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—State Technical Assistance Projects To Improve Services and Results for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind* Background Children who are deaf-blind represent one of the lowest incidence and most diverse groups of learners receiving early intervention, special education, and related services (Muller, 2006). In addition to having combined hearing and vision loss, 90 percent of these children experience concomitant physical or intellectual disabilities and may experience complex medical and behavioral challenges (Killoran, 2007). Children who are deaf-blind are often isolated and disconnected from people and activities in their homes, schools, and communities both because they cannot access visual and auditory information and because they are not given the individualized supports necessary to access this information. Without individualized supports to access visual and auditory information (i.e., environmental information, such as who is present, what is being said, and what activities are occurring), children who are deaf-blind are at greater risk for not attaining age-appropriate milestones in communication and language, social skills, and activities of daily living, which in turn affects their educational outcomes. Consequently, students who are deaf-blind often exit school at age 22 without viable postsecondary education, employment, or independent living options. Most State educational agencies (SEAs), Part C State lead agencies, and local educational agencies
(LEAs)lack sufficient numbers of personnel with the specialized training, experience, and skills that are needed to provide appropriate early intervention, special education, and related services to children who are deaf-blind (Collins, 1992; Markowitz, 2001; McLetchie, 1992). The critical shortage of personnel to serve children who are deaf-blind can limit access to a free appropriate public education for these children. Since its inception, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP)has funded technical assistance
(TA)projects and personnel preparation programs to build State and local capacity to serve children who are deaf-blind and their families. As a result of those projects and programs, professionals, advocates, individuals who are deaf-blind, and parents have collaborated to make progress in identifying evidence-based intervention practices for children who are deaf-blind, developing high-quality training materials and resources, and developing networks across States to share information (Killorin, Davies, & McNulty, 2006). However, the National Deaf-Blind Child Count Registry data show that eighty-five percent of school-age children receive their services in separate settings. More work is needed to ensure that early intervention, special and regular education, and related services personnel have adequate skills to appropriately serve infants and toddlers in natural environments, which may include home and community settings, and school-age children in the least restrictive environment (Warner, 2007). Under this priority, the projects to be funded will create or strengthen collaborative partnerships among families, SEAs, State lead agencies, and LEAs to enhance services and improve outcomes for children who are deaf-blind. Projects will assist SEAs, State lead agencies, and LEAs in ensuring that children served under Part C of IDEA who are deaf-blind receive services, to the maximum extent appropriate, in natural environments, and children served under Part B of IDEA who are deaf-blind have access to, and are involved and make progress in, the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment. Priority: The purpose of this priority is to support the establishment and operation of State Technical Assistance Projects To Improve Services and Results for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind (projects). Grants are available to support projects in all States, the Virgin Islands, and the outlying areas and the Freely Associated States
(FAS)of the Pacific Basin. Funds awarded under this priority may not be used to provide direct early intervention services under Part C of IDEA, or direct special education and related services under Part B of IDEA. To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. All projects funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: For more information on logic models, the following Web site lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm.*
(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority;
(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services; and
(d)A budget for attendance at the following:
(1)A four-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
(2)A three-day National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness Annual Topical Conference during each year of the project period. *Project Activities.* To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities: Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities
(a)Facilitate collaborative partnerships between family members of children who are deaf-blind; early intervention, special and regular education, and related services personnel; and SEAs, LEAs, and State lead agencies to develop and implement individualized supports that improve children's outcomes and educational achievement.
(b)Provide information and TA, including distance learning activities and ongoing professional development opportunities paired with on-site coaching, to family members of children who are deaf-blind and early intervention, special and regular education, and related services personnel working with children who are deaf-blind. Information and TA must focus on helping family members and early intervention, special and regular education, and related services personnel—
(1)Identify developmental and educational milestones;
(2)Develop age-appropriate Individualized Family Service Plans and standards-based Individualized Education Programs, which include measurable postsecondary goals for students no later than the age of 16;
(3)Use children's interests, preferences, and learning characteristics to support learning and development;
(4)Use evidence-based practices to increase children's communication, language, concept development, social interactions, and adaptive behaviors, thereby improving early intervention and educational outcomes;
(5)Use assistive and instructional technologies to maintain or improve children's functional and educational capabilities; and
(6)Increase children's access to and participation in natural environments, which may include home and community settings, and age-appropriate activities-based routines for those served under Part C of IDEA, and access to, and participation and progress in, the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment for those served under Part B of IDEA.
(c)Work with families, SEAs, State lead agencies, LEAs, and institutions of higher education
(IHEs)to use information from the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness and other appropriate sources to develop—
(1)A shared understanding across the stakeholder groups of how to support children who are deaf-blind within local systems and communities;
(2)A plan that addresses the professional development needs of personnel who serve children who are deaf-blind, including paraprofessionals who serve as interveners. An “intervener” is an individual who has received specialized training to assist children who are deaf-blind by
(a)facilitating access to environmental information, such as who is present, what is being said, and what activities are occurring,
(b)supporting their development and use of communication skills, and
(c)promoting their social and emotional well-being by maintaining a trusting and interactive relationship (Alsop, Blaha, & Kloos, 2000). For further information regarding interveners see: *http://www.nationaldb.org/ISSelectedTopics.php?topicCatID=10);* and
(3)Program improvement strategies for the State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports and local program and school improvement activities.
(d)Work with SEAs, LEAs, State lead agencies and, as appropriate, IHEs to implement the professional development plan.
(e)If the project maintains a Web site, ensure that it meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility and links to the Web site operated by the Technical Assistance Coordination Center, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. Leadership and Coordination Activities
(a)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness
(NCDB)and ensure that the project's staff is aware of NCDB's resources, products, and services that may be used in its training and TA activities.
(b)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects, including Parent Training and Information Centers; the Postsecondary Education Programs Network; the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard Development and Technical Assistance Centers; Bookshare.org for Education, the Center for the Production and Dissemination of Educational Materials in Accessible Formats for Students with Visual Impairments and Other Print Disabilities; the Center for Implementing Technology in Education; the Family Center on Technology and Disability; the National Center for Technology Innovation; the Regional Resource Centers; the National Center for Leadership in Vision Impairment; and low-incidence personnel development projects. This collaboration could include the coordination of TA services, the planning and carrying out of TA meetings and events, and possible joint development of products.
(c)Though product development should not be a primary function of this project, if the project identifies an emerging need for a product ( *e.g.* , print materials, DVDs, videos), submit a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product prior to development to the OSEP Project Officer.
(d)Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, OSEP communities of practice ( *http://www.tacommunities.org* ) that are aligned with the project's objectives as a way to support discussions and collaboration among key stakeholders.
(e)Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the project's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix ( *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org* ), which provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders.
(f)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through regular phone conversations and e-mail communication. References Alsop, L., Blaha, R., & Kloos, E. (2000). *The intervener in early intervention and educational settings for children and youth with deafblindness* (Briefing Paper). Monmouth, OR: The National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Young Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind. Collins, M. T. (1992). Educational Services. In J.W. Reiman & P.A. Johnson (Eds.), *Proceedings from the National Symposium on Children and Youth Who Are Deaf Blind* (pp. 165-178). Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research Publications. Killoran, J. (2007). *The national deaf-blind child count: 1998-2005 in review.* Monmouth, OR: National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. Retrieved December 27, 2007, from *http://www.nationaldb.org/documents/products/Childcountreview0607Final.pdf.* Killorin, J., Davies, P., & McNulty, K. (August 2006). The NTAC Outcomes and Performance Indicators: A System for Documenting Outcomes for Children and Youth with Deaf-Blindness, their Families, and the Service Providers and Systems that Serve Them. Western Oregon University Monmouth, OR. Retrieved December 27, 2007, from *http://tr.wou.edu/ntac/index.cfm?path=publications/publications_index.html* . Markowitz, J. (April 2001). Personnel to Support the Education of Children and Youth with Deafblindness. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum. McLetchie, B.A.B.
(1992)Personnel Preparation. In J.W. Reiman & P.A. Johnson (Eds.), *Proceedings from the National Symposium on Children and Youth Who Are Deaf Blind* (pp. 203-219). Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research Publications. Muller, E. (2006, July). Deaf-blind child counts: Issues and challenges. *Alexandria, VA: Project Forum.* Warner, R. ( 2007, February). *The Real Deal.* Presentation at the conference Deafblindness: A Real Vision, Hampton, VA. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $9,500,000. Please refer to the “Funding Level” column in the chart shown in the Maximum Awards section of this notice for the estimated dollar amounts for individual awards. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $30,000-$575,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $176,000. *Maximum Awards:* The following chart lists the maximum amount of funds for individual States for a single budget period of 12 months. A State may be served by only one supported project. In determining the maximum funding levels for each State the Secretary considered, among other things, the following factors:
(1)The total number of children from birth through age 21 in the State.
(2)The number of people in poverty in the State.
(3)The previous funding levels.
(4)The maximum and minimum funding amounts. 2008 Funding Levels for CFDA No. 84.326C State Funding level State Funding level AK $106,971 ND 65,000 AL 185,095 NE 78,471 AR 118,534 NH 65,807 AZ 175,338 NJ 268,086 CA 575,000 NM 100,912 CO 154,079 NY 575,000 CT 104,751 NV 112,563 DE 83,362 OH 259,320 FL 362,027 OK 131,374 GA 305,978 OR 121,286 HI 77,491 PA 371,952 IA 97,054 PR 65,000 ID 85,303 RI 79,368 IL 335,444 SC 154,204 IN 210,093 SD 101,746 KS 128,122 TN 238,451 KY 165,145 TX 575,000 LA 145,840 UT 92,039 MA 126,661 VA 234,082 MD 164,366 VT 114,301 ME 65,000 WA 195,750 MI 256,289 WI 173,484 MN 171,335 WV 125,020 MO 197,129 WY 65,000 MS 133,605 DC 65,000 MT 106,123 Pacific ** 92,000 NC 313,649 VI 30,000 **The areas to be served by this award are the outlying areas of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the Freely Associated States of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. An applicant for this award must propose to serve all of these areas. We will reject an application for a State project that proposes a budget exceeding the funding level for any single budget period of 12 months. An applicant may apply for more than one State project award; however a separate application must be submitted for each State project. We will reject an application that proposes to serve more than one State or area specified in the chart above. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register.** *Estimated Number of Awards:* 54. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; FAS; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.326C. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternate Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 70 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative in Part III. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you use other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: March 25, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 24, 2008. Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV.6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* June 23, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. Electronic Submission of Applications. To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The State Technical Assistance Projects To Improve Services and Results for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind competition, CFDA Number 84.326C, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the State Technical Assistance Projects To Improve Services and Results for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind competition at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326C). Please note the following: • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to: Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf)* . You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326C), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326C), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within the specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These measures focus on the extent to which projects provide high quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice. Grantees will be required to provide information related to these measures in annual reports to the Department. Grantees also will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4066, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7529. If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: March 19, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-6057 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 27, 2008. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to Robert J. Marchick, GC-62, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Robert J. Marchick at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request contains:
(1)OMB No. 1910-0800;
(2)Information Collection Request Title: Legal Collections;
(3)Type of Review: Renewal;
(4)Purpose: to continue to maintain DOE control and oversight of DOE contractor invention reporting and related matters;
(5)Respondents: approx. 2160 respondents;
(6)Estimated Number of Burden Hours: Approx. 16745 hours. Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5908(a) and (b). Issued in Washington, DC on March 19, 2008. Robert J. Marchick, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, Office of General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-5990 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Legal Collections, OMB Control Number 1910-0800. This information collection request covers information necessary to legal collections related to invention reporting by DOE contractors, and related matters. The information is used by DOE management to exercise management oversight with respect to the implementation of applicable statutory and contractual requirements and obligations. DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before April 24, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to Robert Marchick, GC-62, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Marchick, at the address listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request contains:
(1)OMB No. 1910-0800;
(2)Information Collection Request Title: Legal Collections;
(3)Purpose: To continue to maintain DOE control and oversight of DOE and contractor invention reporting and related matters;
(4)Estimated Number of Respondents 2160;
(5)Estimated Total Burden Hours: 16745;
(6)Number of Collections: The information collection request contains 5 information and/or recordkeeping requirements. Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5908
(a)and (b). Issued in Washington, DC on March 19, 2008. Robert J. Marchick, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, Office of General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-5992 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Wednesday, April 9, 2008, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone
(865)576-4025; Fax
(865)576-2347 or e-mail: *halseypj@oro.doe.gov* or check the Web site at *http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Board:* The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. *Tentative Agenda:* The main meeting topic will be on the “White Oak Lake/Embayment and Bear Creek Valley Uranium Disposals.” *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. *Minutes:* Minutes will be available by writing or calling Pat Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: *http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.* Issued at Washington, DC on March 20, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5987 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12696-001] Alaska Tidal Energy Company; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit March 19, 2008. Take notice that Alaska Tidal Energy Company, permittee for the proposed Gastineau Channel Tidal Energy Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 23, 2007, and would have expired on February 28, 2010. 1 The project would have been located in the Gastineau Channel in Juneau Borough, Alaska. 1 118 FERC ¶ 62,220. The permittee filed the request on March 13, 2008, and the preliminary permit for Project No. 12696 shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or legal holiday as described in section 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the effective date is the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next business day. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-6022 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12735-001] Midwest Hydraulic, Inc.; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit March 19, 2008. Take notice that Midwest Hydraulic, Inc., permittee for the proposed Stebbinsville Hydroelectric Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 8, 2007, and would have expired on February 28, 2010. 1 The project would have been located on the Yahara River in Rock County, Wisconsin. 1 118 FERC ¶ 62,180. The permittee filed the request on March 17, 2008, and the preliminary permit for Project No. 12735 shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or legal holiday as described in section 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the effective date is the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next business day. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-6020 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12672-003] Oregon Tidal Energy Company; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit March 19, 2008. Take notice that Oregon Tidal Energy Company, permittee for the proposed Columbia Tidal Energy Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 23, 2007, and would have expired on February 28, 2010. 1 The project would have been located in the Pacific Ocean near the mouth of the Columbia River in Clatsop County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum and Pacific Counties, Washington. 1 118 FERC ¶ 62,222. The permittee filed the request on March 13, 2008, and the preliminary permit for Project No. 12672 shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or legal holiday as described in section 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the effective date is the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next business day. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-6023 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150; FRL-8546-1] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Establishing No-Discharge Zones Under Clean Water Act Section 312; EPA ICR No.1791.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0187 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150, by the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *OW-Docket@epa.gov.* • Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at: *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Laabs, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 4504T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 202-566-1223; fax number: 202-566-1546; e-mail address: *laabs.chris@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150, which is available for online viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket Docket is
(202)566-2426. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? *Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are State, local, and tribal governments. *Title:* Establishing No-Discharge Zones Under Clean Water Act section 312. *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1791.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0187. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. *Abstract:*
(A)*Sewage No-discharge Zones:* The need for EPA to obtain information for the establishment of no-discharge zones
(NDZs)for vessel sewage in State waters stems from CWA sections 312(f)(3), (f)(4)(A), and (f)(4)(B), and subsequent regulations at 40 CFR 140.4(a)-(c). No-discharge zones are established to provide State and local governments with additional protection of waters from treated or untreated vessel sewage. There are three ways in which NDZs for vessel sewage can be established. This ICR discusses the information requirements associated with the establishment of NDZs for vessel sewage. The responses to this collection of information are required to obtain the benefit of a sewage NDZ (see 33 U.S.C. 1322). The information collection activities discussed in this ICR do not require the submission of any confidential information.
(B)*UNDS No-discharge Zones:* Under section 312(n) of the Clean Water Act (“Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces” or “UNDS”) no-discharge zones (“NDZs”) for discharges from Armed Forces vessels may be established by either State prohibition or EPA prohibition following the procedures in 40 CFR Part 1700. UNDS also provides that the Governor of any State may petition EPA and the Secretary of Defense to review any determination or standard promulgated under the UNDS program if there is significant new information that could reasonably result in a change to the determination or standard. This ICR discusses the information that will be required from a State if it decides to establish a NDZ by State prohibition or apply for a NDZ by EPA prohibition, and the information that will be required from a State if it decides to submit a petition for review. The responses to this collection of information are required to obtain the benefit of an UNDS NDZ or a review of an UNDS determination or standard (see 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)). The information collection activities discussed in this ICR do not require the submission of any confidential information. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 127 hours per response. The estimates include time for gathering information, and preparing and submitting requests. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is captured in the following charts. Table 1.—Sewage NDZ Total Estimated Respondent (State Agency) Burden and Cost Summary Number of respondents Number of activities per year Total number of hours per year Total labor cost per year ($) Total annual capital cost ($) Total annual O&M costs ($) Sewage NDZ by State Prohibition [40 CFR 140.4(a)] 8 8 1064 47,058 0.00 1,200 Sewage NDZ by EPA Prohibition [40 CFR 140.4(b)] 1 .33 43 1,888 0.00 50 Drinking water NDZs [40 CFR 140.4(c)] 1 1 143 6,369 0.00 150 Total 10 9.33 1250 55,315 0.00 1,400 Table 2.—UNDS Total Estimated Respondent (State Agency) Burden and Cost Summary Number of respondents Number of activities Total number of hours Total labor cost per ($) Total annual capital ($) Total annual O&M costs ($) No-discharge Zone by State Prohibition 40 CFR 1700.9; Table 4] 4 4 717 32,408 0 600 No-discharge Zone by EPA Prohibition [40 CFR 1700.10; Table 5] 1 1 194.25 8,821 0 150 Petition for Review [40 CFR 1700.12; Table 6] 1 1 46.25 1,976 0 150 Total 6 6 957.5 43,206 0 900 Table 3. Total CWA Section 312 Estimated Respondent (State Agency) Burden and Cost Summary Number of respondents Number of activities per year Total number of hours per Total labor cost per year ($) Total annual capital ($) Total annual O&M costs ($) Total 16 15.33 2207.5 98,520 0.00 2,300 Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? Estimates have been updated with current state and federal labor costs. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: March 19, 2008. Craig E. Hooks, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. [FR Doc. E8-6002 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION [OMB Number: 3046-0017] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Notice of Information Collection—Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)gives notice of its intent to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to approve a renewal of an information collection as described below. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *By mail to:* Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. • *By facsimile (“FAX”) machine to:*
(202)663-4114. (There is no toll free FAX number). Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal, in order to assure access to the equipment. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at
(202)663-4070 (voice) or
(202)663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll free numbers). • *By the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* After accessing this Web site, follow its instructions for submitting comments. Comments need to be submitted in only one of the above-listed formats, not all three. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. Copies of the received comments also will be available for inspection in the EEOC Library, FOIA Reading Room, by advance appointment only, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except legal holidays, from May 27, 2008 until the Commission publishes the 30-day notice for this item. Persons who schedule an appointment in the EEOC Library, FOIA Reading Room, and need assistance to view the comments will be provided with appropriate aids upon request, such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at the EEOC Library, FOIA Reading Room, contact the EEOC Library by calling
(202)663-4630 (voice) or
(202)663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll free numbers). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed L. Russell, Legal Counsel, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507;
(202)663-4638 (voice) or
(202)663-7026 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) gives notice of its intent to submit the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP or Uniform Guidelines), 1 without change, to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for a three-year approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). A prior PRA document relating to the Uniform Guidelines entitled “Agency Information Collection Activities: Adoption of Additional Questions and Answers To Clarify and Provide a Common Interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures as They Relate to the Internet and Related Technologies,” was published in the March 4, 2004 **Federal Register** . 69 FR 10152. (“March 4, 2004 PRA document”). 1 29 CFR part 1607, 41 CFR part 60-3, 28 CFR part 50, 5 CFR part 300. Based on the comments received to the March 4, 2004 PRA document, the EEOC does not intend to finalize the five additional Questions and Answers that include clarification of the definition of “applicant.” However, employers still must ensure that they are complying with the requirements of UGESP. The preamble of the March 4, 2004 PRA document stated that “[e]ach agency may provide further information, as appropriate, through the issuance of additional guidance or regulations that will allow each agency to carry out its specific enforcement responsibilities.” 69 FR 10153. The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs then amended its regulations governing applicant recordkeeping requirements “in light of [its] unique use of applicant data for compliance monitoring and other enforcement purposes.” 70 FR 58946. In light of the EEOC's unique enforcement responsibilities and priorities monitoring employment practices and detecting employment discrimination, it will determine, after further study, how and if it should issue further guidance or regulations clarifying Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding when employers and job seekers use the Internet and related technologies. Request for Comments The EEOC invites comments enabling the agency to:
(1)Evaluate 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;
(2)Evaluate 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)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Collection *Collection Title:* Recordkeeping Requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR part 1607, 41 CFR part 60-3, 28 CFR part 50, 5 CFR part 300. *OMB Number:* 3046-0017. *Type of Respondent:* Businesses or other institutions; federal government; state or local governments and farms. *North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code:* Multiple. *Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC):* Multiple. *Description of Affected Public:* Any employer, government contractor, labor organization, or employment agency covered by the federal equal employment opportunity laws. *Respondents:* 846,156. *Responses:* 846,156. *Recordkeeping Hours:* 14,822,194.89. *Number of Forms:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Frequency of Report:* None. *Abstract:* The records addressed by UGESP are used by respondents to assure that they are complying with Title VII and Executive Order 11246; by the federal agencies that enforce Title VII and/or Executive Order 11246 to investigate, conciliate and litigate charges of employment discrimination; and by complainants to establish violations of federal equal employment opportunity laws. *Burden Statement:* There are no reporting requirements associated with UGESP. The burden being estimated is the cost of collecting and storing a job applicant's gender, race and ethnicity data. The only paperwork burden derives from this recordkeeping. Only employers covered under Title VII and Executive Order 11246 are subject to UGESP. For the purpose of burden calculation, employers with 15 or more employees are counted. The number of such employers is estimated at 846,156, which combines estimates from private employment, the public sector, colleges and universities, and referral unions. This burden assessment is based on an estimate of the total number of job applications submitted to all Title VII-covered employers in one year, including paper-based and electronic applications. The total number of job applications submitted every year to these covered employers is estimated to be 1,778,663,387, which is based on a National Organizations Survey average of 35.225 applications for every hire and a Bureau of Labor Statistics data estimate of 50,490,000 annual hires. It also includes 153,137 applicants for union membership reported on the EEO-3 form for 2006. The employer burden associated with collecting and storing applicant demographic data is based on the following assumptions: applicants would need to be asked to provide three pieces of information—sex, race/ethnicity, and an identification number (a total of approximately 13 keystrokes); the employer would need to transfer information received to a data base either manually or electronically; and the employer would need to store the 13 characters of information for each applicant. Recordkeeping cost and burden are assumed to be the cost of entering 13 keystrokes. Assuming that the required recordkeeping takes 30 seconds per record, and assuming a total of 1,778,663,387 paper and electronic applications per year, the resulting UGESP burden hours would be 14,822,195. Based on a wage rate of $12.29 per hour for the individuals entering the data, the collection and storage of applicant demographic data would come to $182,164,777 per year for Title VII-covered employers. Dated: March 17, 2008. Naomi C. Earp, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5903 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). *Dates and Place:* April 8, 2008, Washington, DC. The meeting will be held in Room 100 at the Keck Center of the National Academies at 500 5th St., NW., Washington, DC. *Type of Meeting:* Open. Further details on the meeting agenda will be posted on the PCAST Web site at: *http://ostp.gov/cs/pcast/meetings_agendas* . *Proposed Schedule and Agenda:* The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to meet in open session on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at approximately 9 a.m. The chair of the PCAST subcommittee on personalized medicine is tentatively scheduled to lead a discussion on the findings of the PCAST study on personalized medicine. The PCAST also is tentatively scheduled to convene two panels. The first panel will address policy issues associated with realizing the benefits of personalized medicine. The second panel will address approaches and barriers to research partnerships among universities and the private sector. Additionally, PCAST is tentatively scheduled to receive a briefing on the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators developed by the National Science Board. This session will end at approximately 4 p.m. Additional information and the final agenda will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: *http://ostp.gov/cs/pcast/meetings_agendas* . *Public Comments:* There will be time allocated for the public to speak on the above agenda items. This public comment time is designed for substantive commentary on PCAST's work topics, not for business marketing purposes. Please submit a request for the opportunity to make a public comment five
(5)days in advance of the meeting. The time for public comments will be limited to no more than 5 minutes per person. Written comments are also welcome at any time following the meeting. Please notify Dr. Scott Steele, PCAST Executive Director, at
(202)456-6549, or fax your request/comments to
(202)456-6040. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding agenda, time, and location is available at the PCAST Web site at: *http://ostp.gov/cs/pcast/meetings_agendas* . Questions about the meeting should be directed to PCAST Executive Director Dr. Scott Steele at
(202)456-6549 prior to 3 p.m. on Friday, April 4, 2008. Please note that public seating for this meeting is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology was established by Executive Order 13226, on September 30, 2001. The purpose of PCAST is to advise the President on matters of science and technology policy, and to assist the President's National Science and Technology Council in securing private sector participation in its activities. The Council members are distinguished individuals appointed by the President from non-Federal sectors. The PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John H. Marburger, III, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and by E. Floyd Kvamme, a Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. M. David Hodge, Operations Manager, Office of Science and Technology Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5950 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3170-W8-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 9, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis** (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: *1. Louis B. Olsen, Eagan, Minnesota;* to acquire voting shares of Northern Star Financial, Inc., Mankato, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain control of Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-5972 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 18, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. Alliance Financial Corporation, Gastonia, North Carolina;* to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Alliance Bank and Trust Company, Gastonia, North Carolina. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Resurgens Bancorp, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia;* to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Resurgens bank, Atlanta, Georgia (in organization). **C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas** (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272: *1. Central Bancorp, Inc., Garland, Texas;* to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Jones County Bank, Haddock, Georgia. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-5971 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Monday, March 31, 2008. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov* for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 21, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 08-1074 Filed 3-21-08; 1:53 pm]
Connectionstraces to 94
Traces to 94 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
76 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 26 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 109-432
  • 120 Stat. 2958
  • 29 CFR 2540
  • Pub. L. 109-280
  • 5 CFR 1320.1
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 36 CFR 228
  • 36 CFR 252
  • 30 USC 611-615
  • 36 CFR 261
  • 599 F.2d 290
  • 444 U.S. 1014
  • 792 F.2d 938
  • 750 F. Supp. 1029
  • 36 CFR 292
  • 43 CFR 3809.556
  • 43 CFR 3851.1
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 36 CFR 223
  • 36 CFR 293
  • 90 Stat. 2958
  • 98 Stat. 2213
  • 104 Stat. 714
  • 16 USC 620-620j
  • 30 Stat. 35
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 61 Stat. 914
  • 69 Stat. 368
  • 94 Stat. 2400
  • 16 USC 482a-482q
  • 30 USC 21-54
  • 30 USC 611-614
  • 33 USC 1251-1387
  • 42 USC 1857
  • 16 USC 1531-1536
  • 7 CFR 1.1
  • 7 CFR 1.12
+ 36 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 43.7
C.F.R.§ 43.9
C.F.R.§ 39.19
C.F.R.§ 21.29
C.F.R.§ 21.197
C.F.R.§ 71.1
F. App'x599 F.2d 290
SCOTUS444 U.S. 1014
F. App'x792 F.2d 938
Cites 170 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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