Unknown. Confirmation of regulations

89,467 words·~407 min read·/register/2008/04/14/08-1128

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-04-14.xml --- 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 20018 E8-7819 Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Section 610 Review, 19959-19960 E8-7863 PROPOSED RULES Kiwifruit Grown in California; Continuance Referendum, 20002 E8-7864 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993:

ASTM International-Standards; Correction, 20087 Z8-6996 Cooperative Research Group on Development and Evaluation of a Gas Chromatograph Testing Protocol; Correction, 20087 Z8-7007 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Census Advisory Committees, 20018 E8-7818 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20055-20058 E8-7844 E8-7845 E8-7857 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-7835 20035-20036 E8-7836 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Pennsylvania; 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, Wayne County Area, 20002-20005 E8-7875 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20036-20045 E8-7870 E8-7877 E8-7878 Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Reports for Nitrogen Dioxide, 20045-20047 E8-7882 Watershed Management;

Application of Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Methods, 20047 E8-7774 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A310-304, -322, et al., 19961-19963 E8-7665 Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes, 19975-19977 E8-7182 Avidyne Corporation Primary Flight Displays, 19963-19967 E8-7802 Boeing Model 727 Airplanes, 19968-19971 E8-7176 Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes, 19986-19989 E8-7561 Boeing Model 757 Airplanes, 19982-19983, 19993-19995 E8-7297 E8-7662 Bombardier Model CL 600 1A11 (CL 600), et al., 19989-19993 E8-7592 Bombardier Model CL 600 2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes, 19979-19982 E8-7294 Fokker Model F.27 Mark 050 and F.28 Mark 0100 Airplanes, 19973-19974 E8-7178 Lycoming Engines IO, et al., 19977-19979 E8-7574 McCauley Propeller Systems Propeller Models, 19971-19972 E8-7162 Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL Airplanes, 19967-19968 E8-7167 Saab Model SAAB Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes, 19983-19986 E8-7299 Class D Airspace;

Modification: Brunswick, ME, 19995-19996 E8-7694 Class D and Class E Airspace; Amendment: Altus Air Force Base (AFB), OK, 19997-19998 E8-7078 Class E Airspace; Establishment: Lewistown, PA, 19998 E8-7670 Miscellaneous Amendments: Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 19998-20000 E8-7701 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Radio Broadcasting Services; Basin, WY, 20005 E8-7883 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20047-20049 E8-7879 E8-7884 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20049 08-1128 Petition for Reconsideration of Action In Rulemaking Proceeding, 20050 E8-7881 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 20050 E8-7847 Meetings; Sunshine Act, E8-7850 20050-20051 E8-7851 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20051 E8-7725 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Request for Permission to Withdraw Tariff Filing:

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.; Correction, 20087 Z8-5252 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreement Filed, 20051 E8-7861 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 20051 E8-7859 Formations, Acquisitions, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 20051-20052 E8-7858 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20052 08-1126 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment;

Availability: Red River National Wildlife Refuge, Caddo, Bossier, Desoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, LA, 20059-20061 E8-7853 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20052 E8-7816 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020, 20052-20053 E8-7843 American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup, 20053 E8-7713 American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, and Security Workgroup, 20053-20054 E8-7714 American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup, 20054 E8-7718 American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup, 20054 E8-7716 American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup, 20055 E8-7722 American Health Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections Workgroup, 20054-20055 E8-7720 American Health Information Community Quality Workgroup, 20054 E8-7719 Homeland Homeland Security Department See U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Announcement of Funding Awards: Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program 2007 Fiscal Year, 20058-20059 E8-7834 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau International International Trade Administration NOTICES Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:

Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China, 20018-20021 E8-7895 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 20021 E8-7891 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Preliminary Rescission: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 20021-20023 E8-7892 Antidumping Duty Investigations: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China, 20023-20028 E8-7894 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From China and Korea, 20064-20065 E8-7830 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree, 20065 E8-7779 Labor Labor Department See Mine Safety and Health Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, E8-7839 20061-20062 E8-7846 Filing of Plats of Survey: Oklahoma, 20062 E8-7824 Proposed Withdrawal and Transfer of Jurisdiction;

Wyoming, 20062-20064 E8-7837 E8-7840 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modification, 20065-20067 E8-7804 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments, 20070-20071 E8-7867 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Correction, 20001 E8-7908 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States:

Amendment 11; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery, 20090-20133 E8-7795 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications, 20015-20017 E8-7899 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence Fishing, 20008-20015 E8-7902 NOTICES Federal Consistency Appeal by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., 20028 E8-7904 Meetings: 60th Annual International Whaling Commission, 20028-20029 E8-7901 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 20029 E8-7789 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities:

Marine Mammals Incidental to Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Mission Activities, 20029-20032 E8-7897 Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Training Operations Conducted In Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes, 20032-20034 E8-7903 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report: Re-analyses of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features etc., 20034-20035 E8-7896 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20071-20072 E8-7856 Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Ohio State University Research Reactor, 20072-20073 E8-7848 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20067-20070 E8-7783 E8-7785 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 20006-20008 E8-7829 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* Pan American Day and Pan American Week (Proc. 8236), 20145-20148 08-1132 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20073 E8-7828 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting, 20073-20074 E8-7893 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 20074-20076 E8-7825 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 20076-20079 E8-7780 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 20079-20080 E8-7826 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20081-20082 E8-7827 State State Department NOTICES Convening of Accountability Review Board to Examine the Death of John M.

Granville and Abdelrahman Abees, 20082-20083 E8-7887 Determination and Waiver: Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, 20083 E8-7960 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties: National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 20000-20001 E8-7885 NOTICES Meetings: National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays, 20083-20084 E8-7620 Privacy Act;

Systems of Records, 20084-20085 E8-7880 Treasury Treasury Department See United States Mint NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20085 E8-7832 MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20058 E8-7865 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Price Increase; American Eagle 10th Anniversary Platinum Coin Set, 20085-20086 E8-7900 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES VA Benefit Claims, 20136-20143 E8-7898 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20090-20133 E8-7795 Part III Veterans Affairs Department, 20136-20143 E8-7898 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 20145-20148 08-1132 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1150 [Docket No. AMS-DA-08-2004; DA-06-04] National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Section 610 Review AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. SUMMARY: This document summarizes the results of an Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)review of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Dairy Program) conducted under the Dairy Promotion and Research Order (Dairy Order), under the criteria contained in Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Based upon its review, AMS has determined that the Dairy Order should be continued without change. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for copies should be sent to Whitney Rick, Chief, Promotion and Research Branch, Dairy Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0233-Room 2958-South Building, Washington, DC 20250-0233,

(202)720-6909, e-mail: *Whitney.Rick@usda.go* v or by accessing our Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/dairyrp.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 [7 U.S.C. 4501-4513] (Dairy Act) authorized the Dairy Order [7 CFR Part 1150], a national dairy producer program designed to develop and finance promotion, research, and nutrition education programs to maintain and expand markets and uses for milk and dairy products. Annual reports concerning the activities conducted under the order are required by statute at 7 U.S.C. 4514. The National Dairy Program became effective on March 23, 1984, when the Dairy Order was issued. The National Dairy Program is funded by a mandatory assessment of 15 cents per hundredweight on all milk marketed in the 48 contiguous states. Producers can receive a credit of up to 10 cents a hundredweight for payments made to any State or regional dairy product promotion, research or nutrition education programs which is certified as a qualified program pursuant to the Dairy Order. The Dairy Order provides for the establishment of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (National Dairy Board), which is composed of 36 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Each member represents one of thirteen Regions in the 48 contiguous States. The members of the National Dairy Board serve 3-year terms and are eligible to be appointed to two consecutive terms. AMS published in the **Federal Register** its plan on February 18, 1999 (64 FR 8014), and most recently updated its plan on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827), to review certain regulations using criteria contained in Section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Given that many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided as a matter of policy to review certain regulations which, although they may not meet the threshold requirement under Section 610 of the RFA, warrant review. The 610 Review was undertaken to determine whether the Dairy Order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Dairy Act) to minimize any significant economic impact of rules upon a substantial number of small entities. AMS has considered the continued need for the Dairy Order; the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the Dairy Order; the complexity of the Dairy Order; the extent to which the Dairy Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local government rules; and the length of time since the Dairy Order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Dairy Order. A Notice of Review and Request for Written Comments was published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2006, (71 FR 9978). Thirty-two written comments were received and are discussed below. Of the thirty-two comments received, ten comments recommended that the Dairy Order be terminated or re-evaluated. Of those comments, several suggested that non-assessment of imported dairy products were a reason that the program should be discontinued because importers were receiving the benefit of a domestic assessment but were not required to pay assessments. The 2002 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 107-171) amended the Dairy Act to include assessment of imports. A provision also was added to ensure that implementation of an order was consistent with international trade obligations. However, the term United States continued to be defined as the forty-eight contiguous states in the continental United States. Taking into account the narrow definition of United States in implementing the importer provisions of the Dairy Act, USDA concluded that the definition of United States should be amended in the Dairy Act to include Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Therefore, as part of USDA's 2007 Farm Bill proposal, we have included language that would change the definition of United States in the Dairy Act to include all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. When the Dairy Act is amended, USDA intends to resume implementation of the import provisions of the Dairy Act. Several of these commenters suggested that the assessment should be voluntary as opposed to mandatory. The Dairy Act provides for mandatory assessments. USDA has determined mandatory assessments to finance national generic programs benefits all parties involved. Mandatory assessments ensure that assessments are incurred in a fair and equitable manner and that activities under a program can be administered effectively. Several commenters also recommended mandatory referendums and the abolition of bloc-voting, whereby a cooperative votes on behalf of its membership in referenda. Section 4507(b) of the Dairy Act requires the Secretary to hold a referendum on request of a representative group comprising 10 percent or more of the number of producers and importers subject to the Dairy Order to determine whether producers and importers favor the suspension or termination of the Order. We believe a 10 percent threshold avoids unnecessary costs to the industry, while allowing for a referendum if sufficient interest is determined. Additionally, with regard to bloc-voting, Section 4508 of the Dairy Act authorizes cooperative bloc-voting. However, a cooperative is required to inform producers of procedures to follow to cast an individual ballot should the producer choose to do so. One comment suggested that the program violated the commenter's First Amendment right of free speech. However, in June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in *Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture,* v. *Livestock Marketing Association* that generic commodity research and promotion programs are considered “government speech” and, therefore, are not subject to First Amendment challenges. Two comments suggested that the National Dairy Program is used to lobby and conduct activities that are not in the best interest of producers. We disagree. Section 4504(j) of the Dairy Act and Section 1150.154 of the Dairy Order prohibit the use of assessment funds for the purpose of lobbying or influencing governmental action or policy. No funds collected pursuant to the Dairy Order are used for the purpose of lobbying or influencing governmental policy or action. Further, an annual report to Congress is required under 7 U.S.C. 4514 describing activities conducted under the Order and accounting for the receipt and disbursement of all funds received by the Board including an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the program. Several comments suggested that dairy farmers be permitted to elect members of the National Dairy Board and that the Board is representative of only large farm interests. We disagree. The Dairy Act provides that producer members of the Board be appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by organizations certified in accordance with the Act. Similar provisions concerning nominations appear in other generic commodity and promotion programs. The Dairy Act further provides that if the Secretary determines that a substantial number of milk producers are not members, or their interests are not represented by an eligible organization, the nominations may be made in the manner authorized by the Secretary. Additionally, the Dairy Act and Dairy Order require the Secretary to consider size, geography, and other factors when making appointments to ensure that all producers are represented. Similar criteria are considered in determining eligible organizations. In contrast, twenty-two comments expressed support for the Dairy Order, recognizing the need and advantages which the National Dairy Program provides to dairy farmers at a State level. Further, the same comments noted that the National Dairy Program invests farmer funds into research and promotion of dairy products, therefore, increasing the economic viability of the products produced and contributing to dairy producer profits. Another comment from a producer recognized that the National Dairy Program works effectively and cooperatively on a national, State, and regional level. Additionally, this producer noted that they are a small dairy farm (150 registered Holsteins, half which are milk cows) and believed that the National Dairy Program contributes effectively to dairy farmer profitability and has minimal impact on small producers and other entities. Several of the supporting comments noted vast producer support for the National Dairy Program and recognized that the National Dairy Program was vital to increasing dairy consumption and maintaining and increasing profitability for the farmer. Since the program began in 1983, total dairy consumption has increased by more than 35 percent according to USDA. Another supporting comment noted that the National Dairy Program increases sales; provides greater opportunity for brands and businesses to compete for their share of the beverage category; protects small producers from being severely disadvantaged against large competitors that could undermine industry growth; and, in general builds a more favorable economic environment for farmers, processors, and everyone with a stake in the industry. Additionally, the same commenter wrote that the National Dairy Program has very little adverse impact on small businesses. In fact, the program helps the small producer by protecting the small producer from being severely disadvantaged by larger competition. The paperwork requirements imposed on the farmer are minimal and the assessment is collected as part of the milk-purchase transaction by the purchaser. One comment submitted by a Qualified Program expressed support for the National Dairy Program and recognized that the program was vital to maintaining and increasing profitability for the farmer and increasing dairy consumption. Additionally, the commenter referenced payments made to State or regional dairy checkoff programs (10 cents per hundredweight) and how such payments support promotion and research programs which directly benefit farmers at the local level. However, the commenter noted that program funds should be used to address pre-harvest dairy production practices and was critical of USDA's policy prohibiting use of program funds for this type of research. Sections 111(j) of the Act and Sections 1150.115 and 1150.161(a)(2) of the Dairy Order are clear that the program's focus is on increasing human consumption of milk and dairy products not on non-human consumption or on improving production or processing efficiencies. This is consistent with the statute's congressional intent. The Dairy Order is not unduly complex and AMS has not identified regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the Dairy Order. Over the years, changes to the Dairy Order have been made to reflect current industry operating practices and to solve current industry problems to the extent possible. The program is independently evaluated every year to determine the effectiveness of its programs and the results are reported annually to Congress. Based upon the review, AMS has determined that the Dairy Order should be continued without change. AMS plans to continue working with the dairy industry in maintaining an effective program. Dated: April 8, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-7863 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0345; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-194-AD; Amendment 39-15465; AD 2008-08-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 Airplanes; and A300 Model B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Commonly Called Model A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This 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: Due to the recalculation of loads for the Multi Role Transporter and Tanker

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71832). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Due to the recalculation of loads for the Multi Role Transporter and Tanker

(MRTT)aircraft, it has been found that a structural reinforcement at the aft section of the fuselage (FR (frame) 87-FR91) is required for A300-600 aircraft and A310 aircraft with a Trim Tank installed. * * * * * * * The unsafe condition is the potential loss of structural integrity in the aft section of the fuselage between FR87 through FR91, inclusive, during extreme rolling and vertical maneuver combinations. The corrective action is reinforcing the structure at FR91. Related investigative and corrective actions (reinforcement) include: • Doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking of the fastener holes; • reaming the fastener holes; and • contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repairing any crack found in any reamed fastener hole. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Update Service Information Reference Airbus requests that we update the service information citations in the NPRM. Airbus states that new revisions of the cited service bulletins have been released and asserts that no additional work or substantial changes were introduced in the revised service bulletins. We agree with this request. We have reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2007; and have confirmed that no additional work or substantial changes were introduced in the new revisions. We have revised the AD accordingly, and given credit for actions done in accordance with the original issue of the service information. Request To Clarify Reason Airbus requests that we review the description of the corrective actions specified in the NPRM. Airbus suggests that we revise paragraph

(e)of the NPRM to include installing new oversized fasteners (for all airplanes) and installing reinforcing brace plates on the diagonal struts between FR87 and FR91 (for certain airplanes). Airbus asserts that if we revise the NPRM as requested, it will clarify the proposed requirements of the NPRM. We agree with Airbus that this is useful information. However, when we state in an AD that corrective actions include certain actions, we specify only major corrective actions. The AD requires doing the corrective actions as applicable, and directs operators to the service information for detailed procedures to accomplish those actions. It is not necessary to change the AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 160 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 129 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $5,840 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,585,600, or $16,160 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD: 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-13 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15465. Docket No. FAA-2007-0345; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-194-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those which have received in service application of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126 (Airbus modification No. 13011). This AD also applies to Airbus A300 Model B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes (commonly called Model A300-600 series airplanes), certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those which have received application of Airbus modification No. 13273 in production or application of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156 in service. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Due to the recalculation of loads for the Multi Role Transporter and Tanker

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, reinforce the aft section of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2007; as applicable. Do all related and investigative corrective actions, as applicable, before further flight. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156, both dated November 28, 2006, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. 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, 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: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; 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 2007-0173, dated June 18, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2126, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6156, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 3, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7665 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0340; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-020-AD; Amendment 39-15468; AD 2008-06-28 R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Avidyne Corporation Primary Flight Displays (Part Numbers 700-00006-000, -001, -002, -003, and -100) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)to revise AD 2008-06-28, which applies to certain Avidyne Corporation (Avidyne) Primary Flight Displays

(PFDs)(Part Numbers (P/Ns) 700-00006-000, -001, -002, -003, and -100) that are installed on airplanes. AD 2008-06-28 currently requires you to do a check of the maintenance records and inspection of the PFD (if necessary) to determine if an affected serial number PFD is installed. If an affected serial number PFD is installed, this AD requires you to incorporate information that limits operation when certain conditions for the PFD or backup instruments exist. Since we issued AD 2008-06-28, we have learned that there is an incorrect serial number

(SN)listed in AD 2008-06-28. Consequently, this AD retains the actions of AD 2008-06-28 and corrects the incorrect serial number. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain conditions from existing when PFDs display incorrect attitude, altitude, and airspeed information. This could result in airspeed/altitude mismanagement or spatial disorientation of the pilot with consequent loss of airplane control, inadequate traffic separation, or controlled flight into terrain. DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 10, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-28). We must receive any comments on this AD by June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this 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. To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, MA 01773; telephone:

(781)402-7400; fax:

(781)402-7599. To view the comments to this AD, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . The docket number is FAA-2008-0340; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-020-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Hecht, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone:

(781)238-7159; fax:

(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion Several field reports of PFDs displaying incorrect altitude and airspeed information caused us to issue AD 2008-06-28, Amendment 39-15440 (73 FR 15862, March 26, 2008). AD 2008-06-28 currently requires a check of the maintenance records and an inspection of the PFD (if necessary) to determine if an affected serial number PFD is installed. If an affected serial number PFD is installed, this AD requires you to incorporate information that limits operation when certain conditions for the PFD or backup instruments exist. We received several field reports of PFDs displaying incorrect altitude and airspeed information. These occurrences included incorrect display of information at system startup, including one or more of the following: • Altitude significantly in error when compared to field elevation with local barometric correction setting entered on PFD. • Altitude significantly in error when compared to backup altimeter with identical barometric correction settings. • Non-zero airspeed (inconsistent with high winds or propwash from a nearby airplane) indicated at system startup. • Altitude or airspeed indications that vary noticeably after startup under static conditions. • Erroneous airspeed indications in combination with erroneous attitude indications. • A steady or intermittent “red X” in place of the airspeed indicator, altimeter, vertical speed indicator, or attitude indicator. The conditions described above occur because of a manufacturing process defect on a certain batch of PFD serial numbers during incorporation of a design improvement on the air data unit assembly. The root cause of this manufacturing process defect is still being analyzed. Since we issued AD 2008-06-28, we have learned that PFD SN 0030197 is incorrectly listed in AD 2008-06-28. The correct SN is 20030197. This condition, if not corrected, could result in airspeed/altitude mismanagement or spatial disorientation of the pilot and consequent loss of airplane control, inadequate traffic separation, or controlled flight into terrain. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD revises AD 2008-06-28 by retaining the actions of AD 2008-06-28 and correcting the incorrect serial number. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2008-0340; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-020-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 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 AD. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the 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. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2008-06-28, Amendment 39-15440 (73 FR 15862, March 26, 2008), and by adding a new AD to read as follows: **2008-06-28 R1 Avidyne Corporation:** Amendment 39-15468; Docket No. FAA-2008-0340; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-020-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on April 10, 2008 (The effective date of AD 2008-06-28). Affected ADs

(b)This AD revises AD 2008-06-28; Amendment 39-15440. Applicability

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Avidyne Corporation (Avidyne) Primary Flight Displays

(PFDs)(Part Numbers (P/Ns) 700-00006-000, 700-00006-001, 700-00006-002, 700-00006-003, and 700-00006-100) that are installed on, but not limited to the following airplanes that are certificated in any category:

(1)Adam Aircraft Model A500;

(2)Cessna Aircraft Company Model 441 (STEC Alliant Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)No. SA09547AC-D incorporated);

(3)Cessna Aircraft Company Models LC42-550FG and LC41-550FG (Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing and The Lancair Company previously held the type certificate for these airplanes);

(4)Cirrus Design Corporation Models SR20 and SR22;

(5)Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 40;

(6)Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model E90 (STEC Alliant STC No. SA09545AC-D incorporated);

(7)Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 200 series (STEC Alliant STC No. SA09543AC-D incorporated); and

(8)Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28R-201, PA-32R-301 (HP), PA-32R-301T, PA-32-301FT, PA-32-301XTC, PA-34-220T, PA-44-180, PA-46-350P, PA-46R-350T, and PA-46-500TP. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD is the result of our learning that there is an incorrect serial number

(SN)listed in AD 2008-06-28, which is corrected in this AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain conditions from existing when PFDs display incorrect attitude, altitude, and airspeed information. This could result in airspeed/altitude mismanagement or spatial disorientation of the pilot with consequent loss of airplane control, inadequate traffic separation, or controlled flight into terrain. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Table 1.—Actions, Compliance, and Procedures Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Do a logbook check of maintenance records to determine if any PFD (P/Ns 700-00006-000, 700-00006-001, 700-00006-002, 700-00006-003, or 700-00006-100) with any affected serial number listed in TABLE 2—Serial Numbers of Affected PFDs is installed

(i)If, as a result of this check, you find any PFD installed with an affected serial number, do the action required by paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this AD Within 15 days after April 10, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-28) 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 the logbook check. Make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(ii)If, as a result of this check, you cannot positively identify the serial number of the PFD, do the inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD

(iii)If, as a result of this check, you positively identify that the PFD installed does not have a serial number affected by this AD, then no further action is required

(2)If you find, as a result of the check required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD you cannot positively identify the serial number of the PFD, inspect any PFD (P/Ns 700-00006-000, 700-00006-001, 700-00006-002, 700-00006-003, or 700-00006-100) for any affected serial number listed in TABLE 2—Serial Numbers of Affected PFDs. You may do the requirement of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD instead of this inspection Within 15 days after April 10, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-28) Not Applicable.

(3)If you find, as a result of the check required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD or the inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, any PFD installed with an affected serial number, do whichever of the following applies

(i)For airplanes with an airplane flight manual (AFM), pilot's operating handbook (POH), or airplane flight manual supplement (AFMS), incorporate the language in the Appendix of this AD into the Limitations section.

(ii)For airplanes without an AFM, POH, or AFMS, do the following:

(A)Incorporate the language in the Appendix of this AD into your aircraft records; and

(B)Fabricate a placard (using at least 1/8 -inch letters) with the following words and install the placard on the instrument panel within the pilot's clear view: “AD 2008-06-28 R1 CONTAINS LIMITATIONS REGARDING AVIDYNE PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAYS

(PFD)AND REQUIRED INCORPORATION OF THESE LIMITATIONS INTO THE AIRCRAFT RECORDS. YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE LIMITATIONS.” Within 15 days after April 10, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-28) 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 insert the information into the AFM, POH, AFMS, or maintenance records as required in paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this AD and/or fabricate the placard required in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(4)Do not install any PFD (P/Ns 700-00006-000, 700-00006-001, 700-00006-002, 700-00006-003, or 700-00006-100) with any affected serial number listed in TABLE 2—Serial Numbers of Affected PFDs As of April 10, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-28) Not Applicable. Note 1: If you have an AFM, POH, or AFMS, you may fabricate and install a placard as described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this AD in addition to, but not instead of, the Limitations section requirement of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this AD. Note 2: Avidyne Service Alert No. SA-08-001, dated February 12, 2008, pertains to the subject matter of this AD. The service information cautions that all pilots should be vigilant in conducting proper preflight and in-flight checks of instrument accuracy. Table 2.—Serial Numbers of Affected PFDs AD 2008-06-28 R1 D1023, D1031, D1037, D1069, D1075, D1080, D1084, D1090, D1101, D1102, D1106, D1112, D1115, D1136, D1138, D1141, D1144, D1158, D1170, D1172, D1174, D1178, D1188, D1197, D1199, D1212, D1234, D1240, D1249, D1253, D1254, D1256, D1259, D1260, D1262, D1270, D1272, D1277, D1283, D1288, D1313, D1319, D1327, D1351, D1364, D1380, D1387, D1391, D1396, D1405, D1412, D1428, D1433, D1434, D1435, F0006, F0011, F0021, F0030, F0031, F0032, F0035, 20002067, 20003147, 20003296, 20003316, 20004297, 20005316, 20005487, 20008167, 20008227, 20008255, 20009297, 20009476, 20010177, 20010255, 20011396, 20011456, 20012337, 20012506, 20013406, 20014027, 20014227, 20015357, 20017286, 20018317, 20018425, 20018486, 20019067, 20019297, 20020297, 20021067, 20021197, 20022177, 20022207, 20022217, 20022286, 20022287, 20022296, 20023197, 20023377, 20024196, 20024217, 20024297, 20024397, 20024407, 20024425, 20025067, 20025177, 20025217, 20025317, 20026067, 20026197, 20026207, 20026265, 20026377, 20026407, 20026506, 20027177, 20027226, 20027317, 20027377, 20028177, 20028337, 20029177, 20029197, 20029246, 20029265, 20029506, 20030197, 20030237, 20031207, 20031217, 20031406, 20031407, 20031516, 20032067, 20032265, 20032337, 20032516, 20033337, 20034207, 20034327, 20035177, 20036197, 20036237, 20036397, 20037265, 20037285, 20038127, 20038197, 20038337, 20039177, 20040127, 20040177, 20040197, 20040265, 20040317, 20041177, 20042197, 20042265, 20042317, 20042337, 20043197, 20043215, 20043237, 20043247, 20044226, 20044237, 20044285, 20045215, 20045265, 20045437, 20046215, 20047127, 20047147, 20047197, 20048197, 20048215, 20048247, 20049147, 20049357, 20050147, 20050287, 20050346, 20050434, 20051215, 20052215, 20053247, 20053257, 20053357, 20054247, 20054257, 20054357, 20055087, 20056247, 20056257, 20057237, 20057346, 20058346, 20061087, 20061247, 20062087, 20062247, 20063087, 20064087, 20064147, 20064226, 20064337, 20066147, 20067087, 20068147, 20068337, 20069087, 20071237, 20072087, 20073087, 20073346, 20073506, 20074207, 20075087, 20075147, 20075207, 20076217, 20076257, 20077087, 20077506, 20078087, 20078217, 20078257, 20078346, 20078496, 20084257, 20085396, 20087257, 20089257, 20089346, 20090346, 20092297, 20093247, 20094107, 20094416, 20097137, 20098037, 20099107, 20099346, 20099416, 20101416, 20102417, 20103396, 20104246, 20106224, 20111224, 20112224, 20114416, 20115346, 20116346, 20118416, 20123416, 20124456, 20126416, 20129346, 20135337, 20139336, 20140336, 20142037, 20142296, 20146037, 20147336, 20153037, 20158097, 20161097, 20164097, 20165097, 20166097, 20170097, 20170175, 20172175, 20177175, 20202257, 20204175, 20209246, 20214175, 20216265, 20217175, 20224175, 20224265, 20229265, 20232175, 20233175, 20236175, 20236265, 20241175, 20243265, 20265355, 20272355, 20273355, 20278355, 20281355, 20302384, 20308384, 20314384, 20317384, 20320305, 20321376, 20330376, 20330384, 20343384, 20347305, 20348305, 20350305, 20356305, 20359305, 20378475, 20380225, 20381225, 20382475, 20388225, 20402174, 20403174, 20438345, 20440345, 20447425, 20452315, 20458315, 20462315, 20467315, 20540094, 20550094, 20576445, 20580445, 20581445, 20582525, 20584525, 20591525, 20595065, 20599065, 20605065, 20615116, 20618065, 20638116, 20656284, 20732074, 20735176, 20739176, 20755493, 20814015, 20815015, 20974365, 20978365, 20978434, 20986365, 20990434, 20998365, 21002365, 21056395, 21060395, 21063184, 21063395, 21067184, 21070184, 21075395, 21191045, 21200045, 21219045, 21294414, 21311414, 21315414, 21324414, 21325414, 21330414, 21334414, 21340414, 21491056, 21493056, 21596354, 21603435, 21604435, 21606435, 21608435, 21610435, 21614435, 21646086, 21668086, 21812514, 21823514, 21826514, 21836304, 21839304, 21852304, 22310186, 22378026, 22380026, 22398294, 22401294, 22405085, 22412385, 22418026, 22418385, 22419026, 22470524, 22471524, 22472524, 22479524, 22483524, 22486524, 22523204, 22525264, 22531204, 22559135, 22568135, 22572135, 22578135, 22579135, 22586135, 22602135, 22603135, 22608135, 22642493, 22647493, 22682076, 22908334, 22921334, 22961354, 23166495, 23169495, 23173495, 23175495, 23182495, 23371455, 23378455, 23443264, 23445264, 23448264, 23581244, 23602244, 23737136, 23738136, 24021335, 24029335, 24231144, 24238144, 24248144, 24381324, 24478515, 24735144, 24746144, 24750144, 24772085, 24773085, 24865155, 24867155, 24870155, 24990084, 24991084, 24993084, 24996084, 25023034, 25027034, 25522465, 25525465, 25530465, 25532465, 25538465, 25600465, 25618106, 26287114, 26528095, 26547095, 26553095, 26569464, 26571095, 26572095, 26584095, 26588464, 26592464, 27865034, 28478495, 28519495, 29019044, 29023044, 29029044, 29031044, 29032044, 29512216, 29514216, and 29522216. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Boston 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: Solomon Hecht, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone:

(781)238-7159; fax:

(781)238-7170. 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. Additional Information

(g)For the service alert referenced in this AD, contact Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, MA 01773; telephone:

(781)402-7400; fax:

(781)402-7599. Appendix to AD 2008-06-28 R1 Limitations Regarding Avidyne Primary Flight Displays

(PFDs)Before conducting flight operations, pilots must review and be familiar with the Crosscheck Monitor section of the Avidyne Primary Flight Display Pilot's Guide and all limitations contained in the airplane flight manual, pilot's operating handbook, or aircraft operating handbook. As a normal practice, all pilots should be vigilant in conducting proper preflight and in-flight checks of instrument accuracy, including: • Preflight check of the accuracy of both the primary and backup altimeter against known airfield elevation and against each other. • Verification of airspeed indications consistent with prevailing conditions at startup, during taxi, and prior to takeoff. • “Airspeed alive” check and reasonable indications during takeoff roll. • Maintenance of current altimeter setting in both primary and backup altimeters. • Cross-check of primary and backup altimeters at each change of altimeter setting and prior to entering instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). • Cross-check of primary and backup altimeters and validation against other available data, such as glideslope intercept altitude, prior to conducting any instrument approach. • Periodic cross-checks of primary and backup airspeed indicators, preferably in combination with altimeter cross-checks. For flight operations under instrument flight rules

(IFR)or in conditions in which visual reference to the horizon cannot be reliably maintained (that is IMC, night operations, flight operations over water, in haze or smoke) and the pilot has reasons to suspect that any source (PFD or back-up instruments) of attitude, airspeed, or altitude is not functioning properly, flight under IFR or in these conditions must not be initiated (when condition is determined on the ground) and further flight under IFR or in these conditions is prohibited until equipment is serviced and functioning properly. Operation of aircraft not equipped with operating backup (or standby) attitude, altimeter, and airspeed indicators that are located where they are readily visible to the pilot is prohibited. Pilots must frequently scan and cross-check flight instruments to make sure the information depicted on the PFD correlates and agrees with the information depicted on the backup instruments. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 4, 2008. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7802 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0175; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD; Amendment 39-15455; AD 2008-08-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued 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: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4146; *fax:*

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on February, 15, 2008 (73 FR 8831). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot heat sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan circuit. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required 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 AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $181 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,107, or $301 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)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 AD and placed it in the AD Docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-03 Pacific Aerospace Limited:** Amendment 39-15455; Docket No. FAA-2008-0175; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 107, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 31: Instruments. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008. The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot heat sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan circuit. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, within 100 hours time-in-service May 19, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), do the following actions following Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004:

(1)For airplanes only authorized to operate under visual flight rules

(VFR)flight:

(i)Add a ten-amp circuit breaker supplying the pitot heat system to the left hand switch panel;

(ii)Replace the switching circuit breaker used as the pitot heat selector with a switch; and

(iii)Add a three-amp fuse at the power bus at the supply to the avionics cooling fan connection.

(2)For airplanes with serial numbers 101 through 107 that have been modified to operate under instrument flight rules

(IFR)flight, contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited at Pacific Aerospace Limited, Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton, New Zealand, *telephone:* +(64) 7-843-6144, *fax:* +(64) 7-843-6134, *e-mail: pacific@aerospace.co.nz.,* for FAA-approved procedures to comply with this AD, and follow the procedures prior to further flight. 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, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to *ATTN:* Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4146; *fax:*

(816)329-4090. 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.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et.seq.* ), 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 Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/750XL/2, dated September 30, 2004; and Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004; Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd 750XL Maintenance Manual Drawing 11-81101, Assembly, Switch Panel—LH, dated October 15, 2003; and Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd 750XL Maintenance Manual Drawing 11-81519, Schematics Miscellaneous Circuits, dated October 10, 2003, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited at Pacific Aerospace Limited, Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton, New Zealand, *telephone:* +(64) 7-843-6144, *fax:* +(64) 7-843-6134, *e-mail: pacific@aerospace.co.nz.*

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 31, 2008. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7167 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0227; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-159-AD; Amendment 39-15454; AD 2008-08-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking or corrosion of the threaded end of the lower segment of the main landing gear

(MLG)side strut, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires prior or concurrent inspection for cracking or corrosion of the threads and thread relief area of the lower segment, corrective action if necessary, and re-assembly using corrosion inhibiting compound. This AD results from reports of the threads cracking on the MLG side strut lower segment. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured side strut, which could result in collapse of the MLG. DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6577; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 (72 FR 65913). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking or corrosion of the threaded end of the lower segment of the main landing gear

(MLG)side strut, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require prior or concurrent inspection for cracking or corrosion of the threads and thread relief area of the lower segment, corrective action if necessary, and re-assembly using corrosion inhibiting compound. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the single comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 842 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 459 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Fleet cost Inspection 12 $80 $960, per inspection cycle $440,640, per inspection cycle. Prior/concurrent actions Up to 6 80 Up to $480 Up to $220,320. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-02 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15454. Docket No. FAA-2007-0227; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-159-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of the threads cracking on the main landing gear

(MLG)side strut lower segment. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured side strut, which could result in collapse of the MLG. 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. Inspections and Corrective Actions

(f)At the latest applicable time in paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD: Do detailed and magnetic particle inspections for cracking or corrosion of the threaded end of the lower segment of the MLG side strut and do all applicable corrective actions as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4, dated April 7, 2007. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 120 months.

(1)Within 48 months after the last MLG overhaul.

(2)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

(3)Within 120 months after the last MLG overhaul for airplanes on which the actions in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4, dated April 7, 2007, have been accomplished before the effective date of this AD. Prior/Concurrent Requirements

(g)Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Do all applicable actions specified in the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD. Where the lubrication and corrosion protection procedures in any service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD differ from those in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4, dated April 7, 2007, use the procedures in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4. Table 1.—Prior/Concurrent Requirements For— Service Bulletin— Describes procedures for these prior or concurrent actions—

(1)All airplanes Boeing Special Attention 727-32-0411, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2007 Inspecting for corrosion or cracking of the threads and thread relief area of the swivel clevis, and improving the corrosion protection of the swivel clevis fitting threads in commonly affected airplanes.

(2)Airplanes specified as Options III, IV and V configurations in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4 Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 32-79, Revision 1, dated February 27, 1967. Modifying the MLG side strut universal joint. Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 32-157, dated August 30, 1968. Replacing the MLG side strut swivel bushing, incorporating only parts kit 65-89855-1, and not installing the lube fitting in the lower segment.

(3)Airplanes specified as Option V configuration in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338, Revision 4 Boeing Service Bulletin 727-32-268, Revision 2, dated February 20, 1981. Inspecting and modifying the MLG side strut. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-163, dated September 17, 1982. Resolving the interference between the MLG gear beam and the MLG side strut. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use the applicable service information listed in Table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision Date Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0338 4 April 7, 2007. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-32-0411 1 February 19, 2007. Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 32-157 Original August 30, 1968. Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 32-79 1 February 27, 1967. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-32-268 2 February 20, 1981. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-163 Original September 17, 1982. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7176 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25173; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-24-AD; Amendment 39-15453; AD 2008-08-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McCauley Propeller Systems Propeller Models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0 AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding three existing airworthiness directives

(ADs)for McCauley Propeller Systems propeller models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0. Those ADs currently require fluorescent penetrant inspections

(FPI)and eddy current inspections

(ECI)of propeller blades for cracks, and if any crack indications are found, removing the blade from service. This AD requires the same initial inspections, but extends the compliance times and intervals, adds repetitive inspections, and mandates a life limit for the blades. This AD results from our determination that we must require repetitive inspections for cracks, and from reports of blunt leading edges of the propeller blades due to erosion. We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the propeller blade that could cause failure and separation of the propeller blade and loss of control of the airplane, and to detect blunt leading edges on the propeller blades, which could cause airplane single engine climb performance degradation and could result in an increased risk of collision with terrain. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from McCauley Propeller Systems, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS 67277-7704, telephone

(800)621-7767. The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Janusz, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209; *e-mail: jeff.janusz@faa.gov; telephone:*

(316)946-4148; *fax:*

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 2003-15-01, Amendment 39-13243 (68 FR 42244, July 17, 2003); AD 2003-17-10, Amendment 39-13285 (68 FR 50462, August 21, 2003); and AD 2006-15-13, Amendment 39-14693 (71 FR 42258, July 26, 2006), with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to McCauley Propeller Systems propeller models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on November 1, 2007 (72 FR 61824). That action proposed to require the same initial inspections as the three ADs being superseded, but to extend the compliance times and intervals, to add repetitive inspections, and to mandate a life limit for the blades. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the one comment received. The commenter supports the proposal. We also found we needed to clarify that blades that had crack indications were no longer eligible for installation on any other airframe or in any other configuration. We clarified the AD on the point. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 22 propeller assemblies installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 47 work-hours per propeller to perform the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $260 per propeller. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $88,440. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 removing Amendment 39-13243 (68 FR 42244, July 17, 2003), Amendment 39-13285 (68 FR 50462, August 21, 2003), and Amendment 39-14693 (71 FR 42258, July 26, 2006), and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-15453, to read as follows: **2008-08-01 McCauley Propeller Systems:** Amendment 39-15453. Docket No. FAA-2006-25173; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-24-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-15-01, Amendment 39-13243; AD 2003-17-10, Amendment 39-13285; and AD 2006-15-13, Amendment 39-14693. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McCauley Propeller Systems propeller models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0. These propellers are installed on BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Model 4100 and 4101 series airplanes (Jetstream 41). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from our determination that we must require repetitive inspections for cracks, and from reports of blunt leading edges of the propeller blades due to erosion. We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the propeller blade that could cause failure and separation of the propeller blade and loss of control of the airplane, and to detect blunt leading edges on the propeller blades, which could cause airplane single engine climb performance degradation and could result in an increased risk of collision with terrain. 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. Life Limit

(f)Remove all 114GCA-0, L114GCA-0, 114HCA-0, and L114HCA-0 propeller blades upon reaching 10,000 operating hours time-since-new. Initial Propeller Blade Inspection

(g)Perform an initial fluorescent penetrant inspection and eddy current inspection of propeller blades. Use the Equipment Required and Accomplishment Instructions of McCauley Propellers Alert Service Bulletin ASB255, dated January 8, 2007, and the following compliance schedule: Table 1.—Compliance Schedule If the propeller blade: Then inspect the propeller blade:

(1)Has more than 2,400 operating hours time-since-new (TSN), time-since-last inspection (TSLI), or time-since-overhaul

(TSO)Within 100 operating hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD.

(2)Has 2,400 or fewer operating hours TSN, TSLI, or TSO Upon reaching 2,500 operating hours TSN, TSLI, or TSO. Propeller Blades Found Cracked

(h)Remove from service propeller blades found with any crack indications. Blades found with crack indications are no longer eligible for installation in any configuration. Do not install them in any configuration on any airframe. Repetitive Propeller Blade Inspection

(i)Thereafter, inspect the propeller blades within 2,500 operating hours TSLI or TSO. Use the Equipment Required and Accomplishment Instructions of McCauley Propellers Alert Service Bulletin ASB255, dated January 8, 2007. Inspection for Blunt Erosion on the Leading Edge of the Propeller Blade

(j)Every time the propeller is removed for the inspection for cracks, inspect the blade for erosion and, if necessary, repair the erosion. The McCauley Propeller Systems Blade Overhaul Manual No., BOM 100, contains information on inspecting and repairing erosion on the propeller blade. Reporting Requirements

(k)Within 10 calendar days of the inspection, use the Reporting Form for Service Bulletin 255 to report all inspection findings to McCauley Propeller Systems, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS 67277-7704, telephone

(800)621-7767.

(l)The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the reporting requirements and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(m)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Special Flight Permits

(n)Under 39.23, we are limiting the availability of special flight permits for this AD. Special flight permits are available only if:

(1)The operator has not seen signs of external oil leakage from the hub; and

(2)The operator has not observed abnormal propeller vibration or abnormal engine vibration; and

(3)The operator has not observed any other abnormal operation from the propeller; and

(4)The operator has not made earlier reports of abnormal propeller vibration, abnormal engine vibration, or other abnormal propeller operations that have not been addressed. Related Information

(o)Contact Jeff Janusz, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209; *e-mail: jeff.janusz@faa.gov; telephone:*

(316)946-4148; *fax:*

(316)946-4107, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(p)You must use the McCauley Propellers Alert Service Bulletin ASB255, dated January 8, 2007, to perform the inspections required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact McCauley Propeller Systems, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS 67277-7704, telephone

(800)621-7767, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 31, 2008. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7162 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0394; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-252-AD; Amendment 39-15457; AD 2008-08-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.27 Mark 050 and F.28 Mark 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This 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: Recently, a Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator noted that the electrical connectors of the PSUs (Passenger Service Units) did not lock properly during installation in the aircraft. The PSU panels installed in Fokker 50 (F27 Mark 050 and Mark 0502) aircraft are similar to those installed in the Fokker 100. Investigation revealed that the lack of locking is caused by the tolerance in thickness of the gaskets (seals) inside the PSU connectors. This condition, if not corrected, may cause the connector to overheat, leading to electrical arcing and subsequent failure of the PSU Panels. In such instances, smoke is likely to be emitted. * * * We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1848). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Recently, a Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator noted that the electrical connectors of the PSUs (Passenger Service Units) did not lock properly during installation in the aircraft. The PSU panels installed in Fokker 50 (F27 Mark 050 and Mark 0502) aircraft are similar to those installed in the Fokker 100. Investigation revealed that the lack of locking is caused by the tolerance in thickness of the gaskets (seals) inside the PSU connectors. This condition, if not corrected, may cause the connector to overheat, leading to electrical arcing and subsequent failure of the PSU Panels. In such instances, smoke is likely to be emitted. To remedy and prevent these problems, the PSU manufacturer Honeywell International Aerospace Electronic Systems (formerly known as Grimes Aerospace Company), has narrowed the tolerances of these gaskets. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on aircraft of these type designs, this Airworthiness Directive requires inspection [to verify if the J1/P1 and J2/P2 interface connectors can be properly locked and gaskets are present] and, where necessary, replacement of the affected PSU Panel J1 and J2 Interface Connector gaskets. Corrective actions include installing a gasket, verifying that the J1 and J2 receptacle locking tabs are not deformed, replacing the receptacle, and installing a new PSU panel. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Correction to Quoted Material in the NPRM We have corrected two instances where we miscopied the references to the PSU panels in the quoted material as I1 and I2, which should have been J1 and J2. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,880, or $320 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD: 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-05 Fokker Services B.V:** Amendment 39-15457. Docket No. FAA-2007-0394; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-252-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the Fokker airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1)Fokker Model F.27 Mark 050 airplanes, equipped with Honeywell International (Grimes Aerospace) Passenger Service Units (PSUs), part number 10-1178-XX series.

(2)Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes, equipped with Honeywell International (Grimes Aerospace) PSUs, part number 10-1178-XX series or 10-1571-XX series, unless modified in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-070. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Recently, a Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator noted that the electrical connectors of the PSUs (Passenger Service Units) did not lock properly during installation in the aircraft. The PSU panels installed in Fokker 50 (F27 Mark 050 and Mark 0502) aircraft are similar to those installed in the Fokker 100. Investigation revealed that the lack of locking is caused by the tolerance in thickness of the gaskets (seals) inside the PSU connectors. This condition, if not corrected, may cause the connector to overheat, leading to electrical arcing and subsequent failure of the PSU Panels. In such instances, smoke is likely to be emitted. To remedy and prevent these problems, the PSU manufacturer Honeywell International Aerospace Electronic Systems (formerly known as Grimes Aerospace Company), has narrowed the tolerances of these gaskets. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on aircraft of these type designs, this Airworthiness Directive requires inspection [to verify if the J1/P1 and J2/P2 interface connectors can be properly locked and gaskets are present] and, when necessary, replacement of the affected PSU Panel J1 and J2 Interface Connector gaskets. Corrective actions include installing a gasket, verifying that the J1 and J2 receptacle locking tabs are not deformed, replacing the receptacle, and installing a new PSU panel. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Inspect the affected Honeywell International (Grimes Aerospace) PSU Panel Interface Connectors for proper locking of the connectors and to verify that gaskets are installed, in accordance with Part 3., “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-25-061 or SBF100-25-108, both dated March 31, 2006, as applicable.

(2)When discrepancies are found, before next flight, do all applicable corrective actions as detailed in Part 3., “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-25-061 or SBF100-25-108, both dated March 31, 2006, as applicable. 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:* Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; 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.

(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 Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-008, dated July 14, 2006; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-25-061 or SBF100-25-108, both dated March 31, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-25-061, dated March 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-108, dated March 31, 2006; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7178 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0014; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-249-AD; Amendment 39-15456; AD 2008-08-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of both main landing gear (MLG), and repair if necessary. The existing AD also provides optional terminating actions for certain airplanes, as well as other optional methods for complying with the inspection requirements of the existing AD. This new AD continues to require repetitive inspections for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right MLG at new repetitive intervals in accordance with new service information, and repair or replacement of any cracked MLG fitting if necessary. This new AD also requires modification of the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, which would end the repetitive inspections. This AD results from cracks found in the forward lug of the MLG support rib 5 fitting. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the forward lug of the MLG, which could result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 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: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-11-04, amendment 39-14608 (71 FR 29578, May 23, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2200). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right main landing gear

(MLG)at new repetitive intervals in accordance with new service information, and repair or replacement of any cracked MLG fitting if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require modification of the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, which would end the repetitive inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 466 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2006-11-04 and retained in this AD take about 2 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 $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The new required inspections take between 3 and 4 work hours per airplane, depending on the type of inspection accomplished, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this AD for U.S. operators is between $111,840 and $149,120, or between $240 and $320 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The new required modification takes about 73 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost $3,850 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new modification specified in this AD for U.S. operators is $4,515,540, or $9,690 per airplane. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 39-14608 (71 FR 29578, May 23, 2006) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-08-04 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15456. Docket No. FAA-2008-0014; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-249-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-04. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 32025 has been accomplished in production. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from cracks found in the forward lug of the main landing gear

(MLG)support rib 5 fitting. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the forward lug of the MLG, which could result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing. 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 Certain Requirements of AD 2006-11-04 Repetitive Detailed Inspections

(f)Within 8 days after June 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-11-04), or before further flight after a hard landing, whichever is first: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand MLG, and, if any crack is found, replace the MLG fitting with a new fitting before further flight, in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegated agent). Accomplishing the actions specified in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Chapter 51-90-00, Revision dated February 1, 2003, is one approved method for performing the detailed inspection. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 days, or before further flight after a hard landing, whichever is first. As of the effective date of this AD, the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(i)of this AD must be accomplished in lieu of the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Optional Inspection Method

(g)Performing an ultrasonic inspection for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand MLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent; is an acceptable alternative method of compliance for the initial and repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Doing the actions specified in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Chapter 57-29-03, Revision dated February 1, 2005 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 airplanes), or Chapter 57-29-04, Revision dated May 1, 2005 (for Model A321 airplanes), as applicable, is one approved method for performing the ultrasonic inspection. Optional Terminating Action

(h)For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Repair of the forward lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand MLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent); constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Doing the repair in accordance with Airbus A319 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), Chapter 5.C., 57-26-13, Revision dated November 1, 2004; Airbus A320 SRM, Chapter 5.D., 57-26-13, Revision dated November 1, 2004; or Airbus A321 SRM, Chapter 5.D., 57-26-13, Revision dated February 1, 2005; as applicable; is one approved method. New Requirements of This AD New Repetitive Inspections

(i)At the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this AD, or before further flight after a hard landing, whichever is first: Do a visual inspection or ultrasonic inspection for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1138, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Table 1 of this AD or before further flight after a hard landing, whichever is first, until the modification required by paragraph

(k)of this AD has been accomplished. Accomplishing the initial inspection terminates the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Table 1.—Compliance Times Airplanes Initial inspection Repetitive interval Model A318, A319, and A320 airplanes If the most recent inspection is a detailed inspection done in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD, inspect within 150 flight cycles after the most recent detailed inspection Within 150 flight cycles after a visual inspection. If the most recent inspection is an ultrasonic inspection done in accordance with paragraph

(g)of this AD, inspect within 940 flight cycles after the most recent ultrasonic inspection Within 940 flight cycles after an ultrasonic inspection. Model A321 airplanes If the most recent inspection is a detailed inspection done in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD, inspect within 100 flight cycles after the most recent detailed inspection Within 100 flight cycles after a visual inspection. If the most recent inspection is an ultrasonic inspection done in accordance with paragraph

(g)of this AD, inspect within 630 flight cycles after the most recent ultrasonic inspection Within 630 flight cycles after an ultrasonic inspection. Corrective Action

(j)If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(i)of this AD: Before further flight, repair or replace the cracked MLG fitting using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Terminating Action

(k)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 03, dated April 23, 2007. Accomplishing the modification terminates the requirements of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(l)For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, modifying the lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right MLG is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(k)of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the following service bulletins: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, dated September 5, 2002; Revision 01, dated August 28, 2003; or Revision 02, dated August 2, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-11-04 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information

(n)EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0213, dated August 7, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(o)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 03, dated April 23, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1138, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7182 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0420; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-10-AD; Amendment 39-15466; AD 2008-08-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines IO, (L)IO, TIO, (L)TIO, AEIO, AIO, IGO, IVO, and HIO Series Reciprocating Engines, Teledyne Continental Motors

(TCM)TSIO-360-RB Reciprocating Engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. IO-360 Series Reciprocating Engines With Certain Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5 and RSA-10 Series Fuel Injection Servos AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This document publishes in the **Federal Register** an amendment adopting emergency airworthiness directive

(AD)2008-06-51 that was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of Lycoming Engines IO, (L)IO, TIO, (L)TIO, AEIO, AIO, IGO, IVO, and HIO series reciprocating engines, TCM TSIO-360-RB reciprocating engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. IO-360 series reciprocating engines with certain Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5 and RSA-10 series fuel injection servos. This AD results from eighteen reports of fuel injection servo plugs, part number (P/N) 383493, that had loosened or completely backed out of the threaded plug hole on the regulator cover of the fuel injection servo. These servo plugs were installed with servo plug gasket, P/N 365533, under the plug hex-head. We are issuing this AD to prevent a lean running engine, which could result in a substantial loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 29, 2008 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by emergency AD 2008-06-51, issued on March 12, 2008, which contained the requirements of this amendment. We must receive any comments on this AD by June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. Contact Precision Airmotive LLC at *http://www.precisionairmotive.com* for the service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Precision Airmotive LLC, Richard Simonson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055; e-mail: *Richard.simonson@faa.gov;* telephone:

(425)917-6507; fax:

(425)917-6590. For Lycoming Engines, Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; e-mail: *Norman.perenson@faa.gov;* telephone:

(516)228-7337; fax:

(516)794-5531. For Teledyne Continental Motors, Kevin Brane, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Blvd., Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30349; e-mail: *kevin.brane@faa.gov;* telephone:

(770)703-6063; fax:

(770)703-6097. For Superior Air Parts, Inc., Tausif Butt, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; e-mail: *Tausif.butt@faa.gov;* telephone:

(817)222-5195; fax:

(817)222-5785. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 12, 2008, the FAA issued emergency AD 2008-06-51, that applies to Lycoming Engines IO, (L)IO, TIO, (L)TIO, AEIO, AIO, IGO, IVO, and HIO series reciprocating engines, TCM TSIO-360-RB reciprocating engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. IO-360 series reciprocating engines with certain Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5 and RSA-10 series fuel injection servos. That AD requires inspecting servo plugs for looseness and damage on fuel injection servos that have a servo plug gasket, P/N 365533, installed, inspecting the servo regulator cover threads for damage, inspecting the gasket for damage, reinstalling acceptable parts, and torquing the servo plug to a new, higher torque to help maintain the proper clamp-up force against the plug and cover. That AD resulted from eighteen reports of fuel injection servo plugs, P/N 383493, that had loosened or completely backed out of the threaded plug hole on the regulator cover of the fuel injection servo. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a substantial loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the airplane. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other engines of the same type design, we issued emergency AD 2008-06-51 to prevent a lean running engine, which could result in a substantial loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires inspecting servo plugs for looseness and damage on fuel injection servos that have a servo plug gasket, P/N 365533, installed, inspecting the servo regulator cover threads for damage, inspecting the gasket for damage, reinstalling acceptable parts, and torquing the servo plug to a new, higher torque to help maintain the proper clamp-up force against the plug and cover. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately on March 12, 2008, to all known U.S. owners and operators of Lycoming Engines IO, (L)IO, TIO, (L)TIO, AEIO, AIO, IGO, IVO, and HIO series reciprocating engines, TCM TSIO-360-RB reciprocating engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. IO-360 series reciprocating engines with certain Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5 and RSA-10 series fuel injection servos. These conditions still exist, and we are publishing the AD in the **Federal Register** as an amendment to Section 39.13 of part 39 of the Code Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to make it effective to all persons. Interim Action These actions are interim actions and we may take further rulemaking actions in the future. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket No. FAA-2008-0420; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-10-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. 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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD: 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 airworthiness directive: **2008-08-14 Precision Airmotive LLC:** Amendment 39-15466. Docket No. FAA-2008-0420; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-10-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective April 29, 2008, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by emergency AD 2008-06-51, issued March 12, 2008, which contained the requirements of this amendment. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2008-06-51. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following reciprocating engines with an installed Precision Airmotive LLC, RSA-5 or RSA-10 series fuel injection servo, having a servo plug gasket, part number (P/N) 365533, installed under the fuel injection servo plug, P/N 383493:

(1)Lycoming Engines IO, (L)IO, TIO, (L)TIO, AEIO, AIO, IGO, IVO, and HIO series reciprocating engines, regardless of displacement, either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006, and/or with an affected fuel injection servo installed either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006.

(2)Teledyne Continental Motors TSIO-360-RB reciprocating engines, either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006, and/or with an affected fuel injection servo installed either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006.

(3)Superior Air Parts, Inc. IO-360 series reciprocating engines, either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006, and/or with an affected fuel injection servo installed either new, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired since August 22, 2006.

(4)This AD also applies to any other Precision Airmotive LLC fuel injection servos received since August 22, 2006, or any fuel injection servos that have had the fuel injection servo plug, P/N 383493, removed during maintenance since August 22, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from eighteen reports of fuel injection servo plugs, P/N 383493, that had loosened or completely backed out of the threaded plug hole on the regulator cover of the fuel injection servo. We are issuing this AD to prevent a lean running engine, which could result in a substantial loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed before further flight, unless the actions have already been done. The actions required by this AD must be done by an FAA-licensed mechanic. Initial Inspection

(f)Inspect the fuel injection servo plug, P/N 383493, for looseness, by attempting to turn it by hand, while being careful not to damage the safety wire or seal. If the plug moves, it is loose.

(g)If the plug is not loose, go to paragraph

(i)of this AD.

(h)If the plug is loose, do the following:

(1)Carefully cut and remove the safety wire that spans between the servo plug and regulator cover only.

(2)Remove the servo plug while ensuring that the gasket, P/N 365533, that is behind the plug, is not lost. The gasket may be slightly stuck to the regulator cover.

(3)Examine the threads on the servo plug and regulator cover for damage. Threads should be smooth and consistent, with no burrs or chips. The servo plug outer diameter threads should also measure within 0.7419-0.7500-inch.

(4)If the threads on either the servo plug or the regulator cover are damaged, or do not measure within the limits in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, the servo is not eligible for any installation and must be replaced before further flight.

(5)Inspect the gasket, P/N 365533, for tears and other damage. We are allowing the re-use of undamaged gaskets. Replace damaged gaskets with a new gasket, P/N 365533.

(6)When reassembling, do not install any servo plug or regulator cover that is not eligible for installation. Install the gasket onto the servo plug and reassemble the servo plug to the regulator cover.

(7)Torque the servo plug to a new, higher torque of 90-100 in-lbs, to help maintain the proper clamp-up force against the plug and cover.

(8)Safety wire the servo plug with 0.025-inch diameter wire to the regulator cover. Information on properly safety wiring the plug can be found in Precision Airmotive LLC Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PRS-107, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2008.

(9)Inspect all other safety wire on the servo. Replace any that are damaged. Repetitive Inspections

(i)At every engine oil change or within every 50 hours of engine run time, whichever occurs first, repeat the inspection and remedial steps specified in paragraphs

(f)through (h)(9) of this AD. Special Flight Permits Prohibited

(j)Under 14 CFR part 39.23, we are prohibiting special flight permits. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(k)The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, may approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(l)Precision Airmotive LLC Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PRS-107, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD. You can get the service information identified in this AD from *http://www.precisionairmotive.com.*

(m)For Precision Airmotive LLC, Richard Simonson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055; e-mail: *Richard.simonson@faa.gov* ; telephone:

(425)917-6507; fax:

(425)917-6590.

(n)For Lycoming Engines, Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; e-mail: *Norman.perenson@faa.gov* ; telephone:

(516)228-7337; fax:

(516)794-5531.

(o)For Teledyne Continental Motors, Kevin Brane, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Blvd., Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30349; e-mail: *kevin.brane@faa.gov* ; telephone:

(770)703-6063; fax:

(770)703-6097.

(p)For Superior Air Parts, Inc., Tausif Butt, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; e-mail: *Tausif.butt@faa.gov* ; telephone:

(817)222-5195; fax:

(817)222-5785. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 4, 2008. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7574 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0047; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD; Amendment 39-15461; AD 2008-08-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes. That AD currently requires revising the airworthiness limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual

(MRM)by incorporating procedures for repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the pitch feel simulator

(PFS)units. That AD also requires new repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the PFS unit, and corrective actions if necessary; and after initiating the new tests, requires removal of the existing procedures for the repetitive functional tests from the MRM. This new AD requires revised procedures for the functional tests. This AD results from a report that the shear pin located in the input lever of two PFS units failed due to fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent undetected failure of the shear pins of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 19, 2008. On March 27, 2006 (71 FR 12277, March 10, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005. On February 13, 2004 (69 FR 4234, January 29, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-1784, dated October 24, 2003, to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations.” ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-228-7305; fax 516-794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-05-11 R1, amendment 39-14528 (71 FR 15323, March 28, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4125). That NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the airworthiness limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual

(MRM)by incorporating procedures for repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the pitch feel simulator

(PFS)units. That NPRM also proposed to continue to require new repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the PFS unit, and corrective actions if necessary; and after initiating the new tests, requires removal of the existing procedures for the repetitive functional tests from the MRM. That NPRM also proposed to require revised procedures for the functional tests. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revise MRM 1 $80 $80 684 $54,720. Functional tests 1 80 $80, per test cycle 684 $54,720, per test cycle. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 39-14528 (71 FR 15323, March 28, 2006) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-08-09 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Amendment 39-15461. Docket No. FAA-2008-0047; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-05-11 R1. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 and subsequent. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that the shear pin located in the input lever of two pitch feel simulator

(PFS)units failed due to fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent undetected failure of the shear pins of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the airplane. 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 2006-05-11 R1 Revise Airworthiness Limitations

(AWL)Section of Maintenance Requirements Manual

(f)For airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive: Within 14 days after February 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-02-07, which was superseded by AD 2006-05-11 R1), revise the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual by incorporating the functional check of the PFS pilot input lever, Task R27-31-A024-01, as specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision

(TR)2B-1784, dated October 24, 2003, to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations,” into the AWL section. New Repetitive Functional Tests and Corrective Actions

(g)Before the accumulation of 4,000 total flight hours, or within 100 flight hours after March 27, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-05-11 R1), whichever occurs later: Do a functional test of the pilot input lever of the PFS units to determine if the lever is disconnected, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required by paragraph

(j)of this AD. Repeat the test at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours. Accomplishing the initial functional test terminates the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD and the repetitive functional checks of the PFS pilot input lever, Task R27-31-A024-01, as specified in the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual.

(h)If any lever is found to be disconnected during any functional test required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required by paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(1)Before further flight, replace the defective PFS with a serviceable PFS in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin; and

(2)Within 30 days after removing the defective PFS, submit a test report to the manufacturer in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Previously Accomplished Actions

(i)Actions done before March 27, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(g)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD New Service Bulletin for Functional Tests

(j)As of the effective date of this AD, Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision B, dated December 20, 2006, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated December 20, 2006, must be used for the actions required by paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(l)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-41, dated December 22, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(m)You must use the applicable service information listed in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Bombardier service information Revision level Date Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005 A February 14, 2006. Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated December 20, 2006 B December 20, 2006. Temporary Revision 2B-1784 to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations Original October 24, 2003.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision B, dated December 20, 2006, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated December 20, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On March 27, 2006 (71 FR 12277, March 10, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005.

(3)On February 13, 2004 (69 FR 4234, January 29, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-1784, dated October 24, 2003, to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations.”

(4)Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7294 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0011; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-203-AD; Amendment 39-15460; AD 2008-08-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the lavatory and attendant box assemblies, and corrective action if necessary. This AD results from a report that several passenger masks with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line flow indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks and consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event. DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6457; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2195). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the lavatory and attendant box assemblies, and corrective action if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,035 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 640 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 20 work hours per airplane, for an average of 240 oxygen masks per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $1,024,000, or $1,600 per airplane. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-08 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15460. Docket No. FAA-2008-0011; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-203-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-35-0028, dated April 9, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that several passenger masks with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line flow indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks and consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event. 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. Inspection and Corrective/Other Specified Actions if Necessary

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the lavatory and attendant box assemblies, and do the applicable corrective action, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-35-0028, dated April 9, 2007; except where the service bulletin specifies repairing the oxygen mask assembly, replace it with a new or modified oxygen mask assembly having an improved flow indicator. The corrective action and other specified action must be done before further flight. Note 1: The service bulletin refers to B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01, dated February 6, 2006; and Revision 1, dated May 1, 2006; as additional sources of service information for modifying the oxygen mask assembly by replacing the flow indicator with an improved flow indicator. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-35-0028, dated April 9, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(AD)for the products listed above. This 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: A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the edge of one of the dowel holes. A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail and ultimately lead to loss of [the] wheels and total loss of brake capability. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2677; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55116). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the edge of one of the dowel holes. A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail and ultimately lead to loss of [the] wheels and total loss of brake capability. The corrective action includes doing repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect cracking in the axle adaptor; replacing the axle adaptor if necessary; and ultimately doing the terminating action of inspecting and modifying the main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut and axle adaptors. The inspection is a crack test. The modification includes measuring the dowel hole, and corrective actions if necessary (replacing the axle adaptor, repairing the dowel hole) and, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Clarification of Service Bulletin Revisions We have revised paragraph (f)(5) of the final rule to clarify the applicable service bulletin revisions for the parts installation. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 220 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts cost would be negligible. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $158,400, or $720 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD: 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-07 Saab Aircraft AB:** Amendment 39-15459. Docket No. FAA-2007-29331; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-136-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, unless equipped with main landing gear

(MLG)shock struts modified in accordance with APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12 or AIR83022-32-32.

(1)Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) SF340A-004 through -159.

(2)Saab Model SAAB 340B airplanes, S/Ns 340B-160 through -459. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the edge of one of the dowel holes. A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail and ultimately lead to loss of [the] wheels and total loss of brake capability. The corrective action includes doing repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect cracking in the axle adaptor; replacing the axle adaptor if necessary; and ultimately doing the terminating action of inspecting and modifying the main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut and axle adaptors. The inspection is a crack test. The modification includes measuring the dowel hole and corrective actions if necessary (replacing the axle adaptor, repairing the dowel hole), and, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 8,000 flight cycles since the last MLG overhaul, or within 1,500 flight cycles, or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Inspect the MLG in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, Revision 01, dated May 3, 2006. If any crack is found, before further flight: Replace the axle adaptor in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, Revision 01, dated May 3, 2006.

(2)Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until the terminating action required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD is accomplished.

(3)Within 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or at the next MLG overhaul, whichever occurs earlier: Inspect and modify the MLG shock strut and axle adaptors in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; or AIR83022-32-32, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; as applicable.

(4)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletins listed in paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this AD, as applicable, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions in this AD.

(i)Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, dated April 19, 2006.

(ii)APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12, dated January 2006; Revision 1, dated January 23, 2006; and Revision 2, dated March 30, 2006.

(iii)APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32, dated January 2006; Revision 1, dated January 23, 2006; and Revision 2, dated March 30, 2006.

(5)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MLG shock strut having part number (P/N) AIR83022 or AIR83064, or axle adaptor having P/N AIR127308, AIR390226, or AIR130238, unless it has been inspected and modified in accordance with APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32 or AIR83064-32-12, as specified in paragraph (f)(3), (f)(4)(ii), or (f)(4)(iii) of this AD, as applicable. 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, ANM-116, International Branch, 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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2677; 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.

(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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0263, dated August 29, 2006; Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, Revision 01, dated May 3, 2006; APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; and APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-581.88, Linköping, Sweden.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision Date APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32 3 April 26, 2006. APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12 3 April 26, 2006. Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133 01 May 3, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7299 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD; Amendment 39-15462; AD 2008-08-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this AD requires replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting and certain adjacent components of the main landing gear

(MLG)support beam. This AD also requires repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD provides an alternative one-time inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary, which would extend the compliance time for the replacement of the outboard stabilizing fitting. For certain other airplanes, this AD also requires performing a torque check of the aft pin of the outboard stabilizing fitting, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, consequent damage to the hydraulic system, and possible loss of the “A” and “B” hydraulic systems and damage or jamming of the flight control cables. Damage or jamming of the flight control cables could result in loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6440; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50278). For certain airplanes, that NPRM proposed to require replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting and certain adjacent components of the main landing gear

(MLG)support beam. That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM proposed to provide an alternative one-time inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting for discrepancies and corrective actions if necessary, which would extend the compliance time for the replacement of the outboard stabilizing fitting. For certain other airplanes, that NPRM proposed to require performing a torque check of the aft pin of the outboard stabilizing fitting, and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the commenters. Request To Change the Description of the Unsafe Condition Boeing asks that we change the description of the unsafe condition specified in the Summary and Discussion sections and in paragraph

(d)of the AD. Boeing states that, Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 airplanes are equipped with “A” and “B” hydraulic systems, and an additional standby hydraulic system. Boeing notes that fracture or disconnect of any of the structural parts specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007 (referenced in the NPRM as the source of service information for accomplishing the actions), could result in damage to the “A” and “B” hydraulic system tubes and damage or jamming of the flight control cables. Boeing adds that the standby hydraulic system is protected from any damage from a fracture or disconnect of any of the structural parts because it is not in the affected area. Additionally, Boeing states that if the “A” and “B” hydraulic systems fail, the standby system and manual reversion enable control of the airplane. Therefore, Boeing asks that the description of the unsafe condition be changed as follows: We are issuing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, and consequent damage to the hydraulic system, and possible loss of the “A” and “B” hydraulic systems and damage or jamming of the flight control cables. Damage or jamming of the flight control cables could lead to a possible loss of control of the airplane. We agree with Boeing and have changed the description of the unsafe condition in the referenced sections as follows: “We are issuing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, consequent damage to the hydraulic system, and possible loss of the “A” and “B” hydraulic systems and damage or jamming of the flight control cables. Damage or jamming of the flight control cables could result in loss of control of the airplane.” However, the Discussion section is not restated in the final rule; therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Certain Language Boeing asks that the term “titanium pin,” as specified in the Relevant Service Information section, be changed to “new pin.” Boeing states that the new forward fuse pin is made from 15-5PH CRES stainless steel. Boeing also asks that the word “components,” also specified in the Relevant Service Information section, be changed to “fuse pin” to avoid ambiguity or possible confusion. We agree with Boeing that its suggested changes clarify the language; however, the Relevant Service Information section is not restated in the final rule. In addition, it is not necessary to further change the body of the AD because we already required “new components” for replacement parts. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Extend Compliance Time Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, United Airlines (UAL), asks that the compliance period for paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of the AD be changed from 36 to 48 months to align with UAL's Model 737 heavy maintenance visit. The commenters' state that the work defined in the NPRM will require jacking and defueling of the aircraft, and extensive disassembly of the landing gear. The commenters add that these activities are conducive to depot-level maintenance only; the UAL heavy maintenance visit is done on a 48-month cycle. We do not agree with the requests to revise the compliance time from 36 to 48 months. In Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007, the manufacturer recommended that the actions be done within 36 months after the release of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the serious nature of the unsafe condition as well as the recommendations of the manufacturer, the availability of any necessary repair parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal maintenance schedules of most affected operators. In light of these factors, we have determined that the 36-month compliance time, as proposed, is appropriate. We do not find it necessary to change the AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph

(p)of the AD, we will consider approving requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. Clarification of Paragraph Reference We have changed the paragraph reference in paragraph

(n)of the NPRM for clarification. Paragraph

(n)specifies that accomplishment of the replacement of the tube assembly before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the replacement specified in paragraph

(l)of the NPRM; however, the correct reference is paragraph

(m)of this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 3,130 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 1,380 airplanes of U.S. registry. For all airplanes: The replacement takes between 20 and 24 work hours per airplane to do, depending on the airplane's configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $3,658 and $4,272 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the replacement is estimated to be up to between $7,256,040 and $8,544,960, or between $5,258 and $6,192 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration. For Groups 1 through 8 airplanes: The alternative inspection, if done, takes about 12 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the alternative inspection is estimated to be up to $1,324,800, or $960 per airplane. For Group 9 airplanes: The general visual inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the general visual inspection is estimated to be up to $220,800, or $160 per airplane. For Groups 1 through 5 airplanes that had steel pins replaced per the original issue of the service bulletin: The torque check takes about 7 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the torque check is estimated to be up to $772,800, or $560 per airplane. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-10 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15462. Docket No. FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, consequent damage to the hydraulic system, and possible loss of the “A” and “B” hydraulic systems and damage or jamming of the flight control cables. Damage or jamming of the flight control cables could result in loss of control of the airplane. 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. Service Bulletin Reference

(f)The term “alert service bulletin” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007. Replacement/Repetitive Inspections

(g)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 8, as specified in the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs

(h)and

(k)of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the outboard stabilizing fitting, H-11 bolts, forward pin, and aft pin, as applicable, with new components by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with Part II of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD. Within 120 months after accomplishing the replacement, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment fitting, and do all applicable corrective actions, by doing all the actions, except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD, in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin. Do all corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 120 months. Alternative Inspection

(h)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 8, as specified in the alert service bulletin, on which the existing H-11 bolts were replaced before the effective date of this AD with Inconel 718 bolts, in lieu of doing the actions required by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, do a magnetic test of the attach bolts in accordance with the alert service bulletin. If any bolt is magnetic, discontinue the alternative inspection specified in the alert service bulletin and accomplish the actions required by paragraph

(g)before further flight. If none of the bolts are magnetic, do all the applicable actions in accordance with Part I of the alert service bulletin before further flight.

(1)If any crack is found: Stop the inspection and before further flight do the actions required by paragraph

(g)of this AD. Repetitive inspections must be done after replacing the fitting at the interval specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(2)If no crack is found: Before further flight, replace the forward pin and aft pin, as applicable, in accordance with the alert service bulletin, and within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the remaining replacement required by paragraph

(g)of this AD. Repetitive inspections must be done after replacing the fitting at the interval specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(3)If damage other than cracking is found, or if the fitting lug hole is beyond hole size limits, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(p)of this AD. General Visual Inspection

(i)For airplanes identified as Group 9, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Within 36 months or 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a general visual inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting and fasteners for discrepancies, and do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with Part IV of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs

(j)and

(k)of this AD. Within 120 months after the inspection specified in Part IV has been done, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger and rear spar attachment fitting in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin, and do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs

(j)and (k). Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the Part V inspection at intervals not to exceed 120 months. Exceptions To Alert Service Bulletin Specifications

(j)During any inspection required by this AD, if any corrosion damage is found that cannot be removed, or if any damage is found that is outside the limits specified in the alert service bulletin, or if any discrepancy is found and the alert service bulletin specifies contacting the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(p)of this AD.

(k)Certain sections in Parts I, II, and V of the alert service bulletin specify “For 737-100 and -200 airplanes” and “For 737-300 and -500 airplanes.” However, those sections are applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, and Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes, respectively. Torque Check

(l)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 5, as specified in the alert service bulletin, on which the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting was replaced before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, dated May 8, 2003: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a torque check to determine whether the aft pin is correctly installed. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Do the actions in accordance with Part III of the alert service bulletin. Concurrent Requirements

(m)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 and 3, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishment of paragraph

(g)of this AD, do the replacement of the existing tube assembly of the outboard stabilizing fitting as specified in Part IV of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1052, Revision 4, dated October 24, 1980. Credit for Previously Accomplished Actions

(n)Replacement of the tube assembly before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1073, Revision 4, dated April 12, 1985, is acceptable for compliance with the replacement specified in paragraph

(m)of this AD.

(o)For Groups 1 through 4, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Replacement of the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1231, dated December 1, 1994, is acceptable for compliance with the replacement of the H-11 bolts specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(q)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1052, Revision 4, dated October 24, 1980; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(AD)that applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes and Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the airplane flight manuals

(AFMs)to include a new cold weather operations limitation. This AD requires revising the AFMs to modify the cold weather operations limitation and include additional limitations and procedures. This AD results from reports of uncommanded roll during take-off. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible loss of control on take-off resulting from even small amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing surfaces. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 21, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 21, 2008. On February 22, 2005 (70 FR 8025, February 17, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications. We must receive any comments on this AD by May 14, 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., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, 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 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: Bruce Valentine, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7328; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On February 10, 2005, the FAA issued AD 2005-04-07, amendment 39-13979 (70 FR 8025, February 17, 2005). That AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes and Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) series airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manuals to include a new cold weather operations limitation. That AD resulted from a report that even small amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing surfaces can cause an adverse change in the stall speeds, stall characteristics, and the protection provided by the stall protection system. The actions specified in that AD are intended to prevent possible loss of control on take-off resulting from even small amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing surfaces. Actions Since AD Was Issued Since we issued that AD, Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA)informed us that there were three incidents in which Model CL-600-2B19 and CL-600-2B16 airplanes experienced uncommanded roll during take-off. TCCA advises that it is necessary to further revise the AFM limitations and procedures for cold weather or icing conditions. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued the temporary revisions

(TRs)listed in the following table. The temporary revisions describe limitations that include tactile inspections for ice during certain weather conditions. The temporary revisions also describe limitations and procedures for use of wing and cowl anti-ice during certain taxiing or take-off conditions, and revised take-off limitations to reduce high-pitch attitudes during rotation. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian emergency airworthiness directives CF-2008-15, dated March 7, 2008, and CF-2008-16, dated March 10, 2008, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. Temporary revisions For Bombardier Model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 600/25-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 AFM. CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 600-1/20-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 AFM (Winglets). CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/17-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/18-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1A-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/22-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/29-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5699 Bombardier Temporary Revision 604/24-1 March 20, 2008 Bombardier Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5701 and subsequent (might also be referred to by a marketing designation as CL-605) Bombardier Temporary Revision 605/1-1 March 20, 2008 Bombardier Challenger CL-605 AFM, PSP 605-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision RJ/155-3 March 25, 2008 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2005-04-07. This new AD retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires revising the AFMs to include revised and additional limitations and procedures specified in the temporary revisions described previously. Clarification of AD Compliance Time Due to the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, this AD specifies a compliance time of within 7 days after the effective date of this AD to more closely coincide with the time the Canadian airworthiness directives must be accomplished. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2008-15 specifies a compliance time of within 21 days after March 10, 2008 (the effective date of Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2008-15). Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2008-16 specifies a compliance time of within 21 days after March 12, 2008 (the effective date of Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2008-16). Differences Between This AD and the Canadian Airworthiness Directives The Canadian airworthiness directives specify that operators should advise flight crews of the changes introduced by the TRs; and review the “Pilot's Checklist” to ensure that the instructions regarding selection of the wing anti-ice system to “ON,” as specified in the AFM Limitations section, are incorporated. We do not require these actions because there is no method to determine compliance with these actions. The Canadian airworthiness directives specify that operators should insert a copy of the Canadian airworthiness directive in the AFM, but this AD does not require the insertion. We have determined that this action is unnecessary since all relevant wording is within the required temporary revisions, which are required to be inserted in the AFM. The Canadian airworthiness directives specify certain temporary revision documents. After the Canadian airworthiness directives were issued, Bombardier issued new TRs that include instructions on the cowl anti-ice. TCCA does not plan to revise its airworthiness directives to incorporate the new TRs. However, it is our practice to refer to the most recent and appropriate service information available in our ADs. These differences have been coordinated with TCCA. Interim Action This is considered to be interim action. TCCA has advised that it currently is developing further actions, such as crew awareness and training with regard to winter operations, that will address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this information is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking. FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the critical need to assure safe operation during cold weather (ice/snow conditions) and the short compliance time involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately. Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0408; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-068-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 39-13979 (70 FR 8025, February 17, 2005) and adding the following new AD: **2008-08-06 Bombardier, Inc (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0408; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-068-AD; Amendment 39-15458. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective April 21, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-04-07. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, & CL-604) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: Some Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes might be referred to by a marketing designation as CL-605. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded roll during take-off. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible loss of control on take-off resulting from even small amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing surfaces. 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 AD 2005-04-07 Revision to Airplane Flight Manual

(f)Within 5 days after February 22, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-04-07), revise the applicable Bombardier AFMs, Chapter 2 Limitations—Operating Limitations section, by inserting a copy of the new cold weather operations limitation specified in the Canadair (Bombardier) temporary revisions

(TRs)listed in Table 1 of this AD. Thereafter, operate the airplanes per the limitation specified in the applicable TR, except as provided by paragraph

(i)of this AD. Accomplishing the actions of paragraph

(g)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph. Table 1.—TRs Bombardier Model TR AFM CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) series airplanes 600/21, February 4, 2005 PSP 600 (US). CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) series airplanes 600-1/16, February 4, 2005 PSP 600-1 (US). CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) series airplanes 601/13, February 4, 2005 PSP 601-1B-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) series airplanes 601/14, February 4, 2005 PSP 601-1A-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) series airplanes 601/18, February 4, 2005 PSP 601-1B. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) series airplanes 601/26, February 4, 2005 PSP 601-1A. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) series airplanes 601/24, February 4, 2005 PSP 601A-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) series airplanes 601/25, February 4, 2005 PSP 601A-1-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) series airplanes 604/17, February 4, 2005 PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) RJ/149-1, February 1, 2005 CSP A-012. Note 2: When information identical to that in a TR specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the TR may be removed from that AFM. New Requirements of This AD

(g)Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the applicable sections of the applicable AFM by inserting a copy of the applicable TR listed in Table 2 of this AD. Thereafter, operate the airplanes per the limitation specified in the applicable TR, except as provided by paragraph

(i)of this AD. Once the applicable temporary revision required by this paragraph is inserted in the AFM, the applicable revision required by paragraph

(f)of this AD must be removed from the AFM.

(h)When information identical to that in a TR specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the TR may be removed from that AFM. Table 2.—Temporary Revisions For Bombardier Model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 600/25-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 AFM. CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 600-1/20-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 AFM (Winglets). CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/17-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/18-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1A-1. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/22-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/29-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R) airplanes Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5699 Bombardier Temporary Revision 604/24-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Bombardier Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5701 and subsequent Bombardier Temporary Revision 605/1-1 March 20, 2008 Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of Bombardier Challenger CL-605 AFM, PSP 605-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplane Canadair Temporary Revision RJ/155-3 March 25, 2008 Limitations and Abnormal Procedures sections and Supplement 15 of Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO)FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Bruce Valentine, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7328; fax

(516)794-5531.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(j)Canadian emergency airworthiness directives CF-2008-15, dated March 7, 2008, and CF-2008-16, dated March 10, 2008, also address the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use the applicable temporary revision to the applicable airplane flight manual specified in Tables 3 and 4 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 3 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On February 22, 2005 (70 FR 8025, February 17, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 4 of this AD.

(3)Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 3.—New Material Incorporated by Reference Temporary revisions Date Airplane flight manual Canadair Temporary Revision 600/25-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 Airplane Flight Manual. Canadair Temporary Revision 600-1/20-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 Airplane Flight Manual (Winglets). Canadair Temporary Revision 601/17-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 601-1B-1. Canadair Temporary Revision 601/18-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 601-1A-1. Canadair Temporary Revision 601/22-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 601-1B Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 Airplane Flight Manual. Canadair Temporary Revision 601/29-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 601A-1. Canadair Temporary Revision 601/30-1 March 20, 2008 Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 601A-1-1. Bombardier Temporary Revision 604/24-1 March 20, 2008 Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1. Bombardier Temporary Revision 605/1-1 March 20, 2008 Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1 Canadair Temporary Revision RJ/155-3 March 25, 2008 Canadair Regional Jet Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012. Table 4.—Previous Material Incorporated by Reference Canadair (Bombardier) temporary revision Bombardier airplane flight manual RJ/149-1, February 1, 2005 CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CSP A-012. 600/21, February 4, 2005 CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), PSP 600 (US). 600-1/16, February 4, 2005 CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), PSP 600-1 (US). 601/13, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), PSP 601-1B-1. 601/14, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), PSP 601-1A-1. 601/18, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), PSP 601-1B 601/24, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R), PSP 601A-1. 601/25, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R), PSP 601A-1-1. 601/26, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), PSP 601-1A. 604/17, February 4, 2005 CL-600-2B16 (CL-604), PSP 604-1. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7592 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0339; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD; Amendment 39-15464; AD 2008-08-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice

(TAI)system for cracks at certain outboard stations of the left and right wings, and corrective action if necessary. This AD also provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system. In one incident, the anchor tab and bulkhead seal assembly had separated because of the cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assembly, which in icing conditions could result in insufficient airflow to the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the wings, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6477; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71275). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice

(TAI)system for cracks at certain outboard stations of the left and right wings, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Boeing concurs with the contents of the NPRM. Request To Extend Compliance Time Northwest Airlines

(NWA)asks that the repetitive inspection intervals specified in the NPRM be changed from 6,000 flight hours to 24 months. NWA states that because the NPRM already allows up to 36 months after the airplane has accumulated 20,000 total flight hours to accomplish the initial check, an acceptable level of safety would be maintained if repetitive intervals coincide with operator-scheduled heavy check intervals not to exceed 24 months. NWA adds that if repetitive inspections are at the proposed 6,000-flight-hour intervals, the inspections would need to be accomplished in a line environment. NWA asks that we allow the repetitive inspections to be done during heavy maintenance checks where specialized personnel are available in a controlled environment more conducive to performing the work. We do not agree to extend the compliance time for the repetitive inspections. Based on data from the manufacturer, we find that a 6,000-flight-hour interval is appropriate. We do not currently have data or analysis, nor did NWA provide any, that can support such an extension of the compliance time. We have determined that the 6,000-flight-hour compliance time is appropriate given the probability of crack initiation, crack growth characteristics, and the ability of operators to integrate the required actions into established maintenance practices. However, according to the provisions of paragraph

(i)of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Increase Work Hour Estimate NWA also states that the work-hour estimate specified in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM is underestimated. NWA states that the 2-hour estimate for the inspections is well below the estimate provided by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-0021 and 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as referenced in the NPRM. NWA adds that an accurate estimate for accomplishing the inspections is 8 work hours (2 work hours per support) when access is provided at a heavy maintenance check. From this comment, we infer that NWA would like us to increase the work-hour estimate given in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information below describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours

(2)necessary to do the required inspections, as specified in the service bulletins. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 929 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 530 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $84,800, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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: **2008-08-12 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15464. Docket No. FAA-2007-0339; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice

(TAI)system. In one incident, the anchor tab and bulkhead seal assembly had separated because of the cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assembly, which in icing conditions could result in insufficient airflow to the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the wings, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. 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. Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Action

(f)At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as applicable; except where the service bulletins specify starting the compliance time “ * * * from the date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD: Perform detailed inspections for cracks of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system at certain outboard stations of the left and right wings by doing all the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Optional Terminating Action

(g)Installing a new duct anchor support bracket adjacent to the bulkhead seal assemblies in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as applicable, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service Information

(h)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-0021 and 757-30-0022, both dated August 15, 2006, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0021, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0022, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 3, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-7662 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99] Modification of Class D Airspace; Brunswick, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D Airspace at Brunswick, ME. The Brunswick NAS Air Traffic Control Tower has become a part-time facility; therefore, the Class D Airspace associated with the tower operations must be modified to reflect part-time status. This action enhances the National Airspace System by replacing a more restricted airspace area with a less restrictive one at Brunswick, ME. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2008 0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; Telephone

(404)305-5610, Fax 404-305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov.* Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above or through the website. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. 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.* Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. The Rule This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace at Brunswick, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the hours of operation of the Air Traffic Control Tower at Brunswick NAS Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the Earth is required to encompass all SIAPs to the extent practical and for general Instrument Flight Rule

(IFA)operations. The current Class D airspace in the area is sufficient for these approaches, so no additional controlled airspace must be developed. Class D airspace times will be published first by Notice to Airman, then thereafter published continuously in the Airport/Facility Directory. The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace description at Brunswick NAS to reflect its part time Air Traffic Control Tower's operation. Designations for Class D airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Agency Findings The regulations adopted herein will 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore,

(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(IFR)operations at Altus AFB, Oklahoma. DATES: *Effective Dates:* 0901 UTC June 5, 2008. Comments for inclusion in the rules Docket must be received May 29, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this action to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA 2008-0339/Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may 08-ASW-5 also submit comments through the Internet at *http://regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing this document, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office, telephone number 1-800-647-5527, is on the ground floor of the building at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, AMTI CTR, Central Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas, 76 193-0530; at telephone number

(817)222-4949. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date of the rule. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written comment notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the direct final rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the direct final rule. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this rule must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0339, Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption Addresses above or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. The Rule This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by providing additional Class D controlled airspace extending upward from the surface and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Altus AFB. Additional controlled Class D and Class E airspace is necessary for the safety of IFR operations at Altus AFB. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. The Class D and E airspace areas are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007 and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore,

(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49, of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it provides additional controlled airspace at Altus AFB, Oklahoma. 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designation and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW OK D Altus, OK [Amended] Altus AFB, OK (Lat. 34°39′30″ N., long. 99°16′00″ W.) Altus AFB ILS Localizer (Lat. 34°38′32″ W., long. 99°16′26″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,900 feet MSL within a 6-mile radius of Altus AFB and within 2 miles each side of the Altus AFB ILS 17R Localizer north course extending from the 6-mile radius to 7.6 miles north of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASW OK E5 Altus, OK [Amended] Altus AFB, OK (Lat. 34°39′30″ N., long. 99°16′00″ W.) Altus VORTAC (Lat. 34°39′46″ N., long. 99°16′16″ W.) Altus Quartz Mountain Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 34°41′56″ N., long. 99°20′17″ W.) Tipton Municipal Airport, OK (Lat. 34°27′31″ N., long. 99°10′17″ W.) Frederick Municipal Airport, OK (Lat. 34°21′08″ N., long. 98°59′05″ W.) Altus AFB ILS Localizer (Lat. 34°38′32″ N., long. 99°16′26″ W.) Frederick NDB (Lat. 34°21′14″ N., long. 98°59′11″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.1-mile radius of Altus AFB and within 1.6 miles each side of the 185° radial of the Altus VORTAC extending from the 9.1-mile radius 11.9 miles south of the airport and within 3 miles west and 2 miles east of the Altus AFB Localizer north course extending from the 9.1-mile radius to 15 miles north of the airport and within a 6.5-mile radius of Altus Quartz Mountain Regional Airport, and within a 5.4-mile radius of Tipton Municipal Airport, and within a 7.2-mile radius of Frederick Municipal Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 180° bearing from the Frederick NDB extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 7.7 miles south of the airport and within a 12-mile radius of Altus AFB beginning at a point 3 miles west of the Altus VORTAC 019° radial, thence clockwise along the 12-mile radius ending at a point 3 miles west of the Altus VORTAC 185° radial. Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 26, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-7078 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0274; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-14] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewistown, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedures

(IAPs)that serve the Lewistown Hospital, Lewistown, PA. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone

(404)305-5581; fax

(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on January 30, 2008 (73 FR 5429). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 10, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, GA on March 28, 2008. Barry A. Knight, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-7670 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30600; Amdt. No. 3262] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes STANDARD Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 2008. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination—* 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability—* All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit *nfdc.faa.gov* to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators' description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A. The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. This, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule “ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on March 21, 2008. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 8 MAY 2008 Sioux City, IA, Sioux Gateway/Col Bud Day Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 1F Sioux City, IA, Sioux Gateway/Col Bud Day Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 24E Warsaw, IN, Warsaw Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 27, Orig-C Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 8C Fremont, NE, Fremont Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 14, Amdt 1 Akron, OH, Akron-Canton Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 10B Harlingen, TX, Valley Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Orig-A Midland, TX, Midland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 14B * * * Effective 5 JUN 2008 Auburn, AL, Auburn-Opelika Robert G. Pitts, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1 Durango, CO, Durango-La Plata County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Cross City, FL, Cross City, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Cross City, FL, Cross City, VOR RWY 31, Amdt 18 Cross City, FL, Cross City, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 10C Atlanta, GA, Dekalb-Peachtree, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Seymour, IN, Freeman Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Orig-A South Bend, IN, South Bend Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 9 South Bend, IN, South Bend Regional, RADAR-1, Amdt 10 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 2 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 23, Orig, CANCELLED Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 23, Orig, CANCELLED Lebanon, NH, Lebanon Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 5A Monticello, NY, Monticello, VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 1, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Monticello, NY, Monticello, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Dayton, OH, Green County-Lewis A. Jackson Regional, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Savannah, TN, Savannah-Hardin County, SDF RWY 19, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Ogden, UT, Ogden-Hinckley, GPS RWY 7, Orig-B, CANCELLED Pullman/Moscow, ID, WA, Pullman/Moscow Regional, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Eau Claire, WI, Chippewa Valley Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 22, Orig Eau Claire, WI, Chippewa Valley Regional, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 7 Eau Claire, WI, Chippewa Valley Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 On March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12631) the FAA published Amendments in Docket No. 30595, Amdt No. 3258 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.25 effective April 10, 2008 which are corrected to read as follows: Rutland, VT, Rutland-Southern Vermont Rgnl, LOC Y RWY 19, Amdt 2 Rutland, VT, Rutland-Southern Vermont Rgnl, LOC Z RWY 19, Orig On March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12631) the FAA published Amendments in Docket No. 30595, Amdt No. 3258 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under sections 97.27, 97.29, and 97.33 effective April 10, 2008 which are hereby rescinded: Anniston, AL, Anniston Metropolitan, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 2 Anniston, AL, Anniston Metropolitan, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Anniston, AL, Anniston Metropolitan, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Anniston, AL, Anniston Metropolitan, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 3 [FR Doc. E8-7701 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. DOT-OST-1999-6189] RIN 9991-AA52 Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties; National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment delegates various authorities vested in the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

(Act)(Pub. L. 110-140; December 19, 2007) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on April 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Feldman, Associate Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, W41-308, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:

(202)366-1834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 19, 2007, the Act was signed into law. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)1.50 delegates to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the mission of the agency vested in or delegated to the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that certain authority vested in the Secretary under the Act concerning automobile fuel economy and other matters should be delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. This rulemaking adds paragraph

(q)to § 1.50 to reflect these delegations. Since this amendment relates to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the amendment expedites the Department's ability to meet the statutory intent of the applicable laws and regulations covered by this delegation, the Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this rule. B. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 13175 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. We also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities because it simply delegates authority from one official to another. Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. E. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department of Transportation has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 49 CFR part 1 as follows: PART 1—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Public Law 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2065; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 41 U.S.C. 414; Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423; Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492. 2. In § 1.50, add paragraph

(q)to read as follows: § 1.50 Delegations to National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.

(q)Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” (Public Law 110-140; December 19, 2007), as it relates to:

(1)Section 106, Continued Applicability of Existing Standards;

(2)Section 107, National Academy of Sciences Studies;

(3)Section 108, National Academy of Sciences Study of Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Economy;

(4)Section 110, Periodic Review of Accuracy of Fuel Economy Labeling;

(5)Section 113, Exemption from Separate Calculation Requirement;

(6)Section 131(b)(2) and (c)(1), Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Program;

(7)Section 225(a), Study of Optimization of Flexible Fueled Vehicles to Use E-85 Fuel;

(8)Section 227(a), Study of Optimization of Biogas Used in Natural Gas Vehicles;

(9)Section 242(a), Renewable Fuel Dispenser Requirements; and

(10)Section 248(a), Biofuels Distribution and Advanced Biofuels Infrastructure. Issued on April 7, 2008. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of Transportation. [FR Doc. E8-7885 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 RIN 0648-XG90 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure; correction notice. SUMMARY: This document corrects information regarding a fishery closure. DATES: Effective April 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karla Gore, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 808-944-2273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 7, 2008, NMFS published a notice that announced that NMFS is closing the commercial and non-commercial fisheries in the Main Hawaiian Islands fishery for seven deepwater bottomfish species (“Deep 7” bottomfish) as a result of reaching the total allowable catch

(TAC)for the 2007-08 fishing year (73 FR 18718), effective on April 16, 2008. The effective date of the temporary rule was correctly established as April 16, 2008. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of that document, however, contained an inadvertent error, stating that the TAC for the 2007-08 fishing year will be reached on April 17, 2008, and that the Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 bottomfish fishery will be closed from April 17, 2008, through the remainder of the fishing year. The document should have read that the TAC would be reached on or before April 17, 2008, and that the Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 bottomfish fishery will be closed from April 16, 2008, through the remainder of the fishing year (opening again on September 1, 2008). This action is required by § 665.72(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 9, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7908 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 920 [Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0014; FV08-920-1] Kiwifruit Grown in California; Continuance Referendum AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Referendum order. SUMMARY: This document directs that a continuance referendum be conducted among eligible California kiwifruit growers to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California. DATES: The referendum will be conducted from May 15 through May 30, 2008. To vote in this referendum, growers must have been engaged in producing kiwifruit within the production area during the period August 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, #102-B, Fresno, California 93721, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, or Maureen T. Pello, Assistant Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:

(559)487-5901, Fax:

(559)487-5906, or e-mail: *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov,* or *Maureen.Pello@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 920 (7 CFR part 920), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by growers. The referendum shall be conducted during the period May 15 through May 30, 2008, among eligible kiwifruit growers in the production area. Only growers that were engaged in the production of kiwifruit in California during the period of August 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008, may participate in the continuance referendum. USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether growers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. USDA would consider termination of the order if less than 50 percent of the growers who vote in the referendum and growers of less than 50 percent of the volume of kiwifruit represented in the referendum favor continuance of their program. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will not only consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to growers, processors, and consumers in order to determine whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the ballot materials used in the referendum herein ordered have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under OMB No. 0581-0189, OMB Generic Fruit Crops. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 250 producers of kiwifruit in the production area to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after May 30, 2008, will not be included in the vote tabulation. Kurt J. Kimmel and Maureen T. Pello of the California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of USDA to conduct such referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400 et seq.). Ballots will be mailed to all growers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents and from their appointees. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920 Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. Dated: April 8, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-7864 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097; FRL-8554-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Wayne County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as, a 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097. 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

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;

(2)a maintenance demonstration, which demonstrates how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for a period of 10 years following the effective date of designation unclassifiable/attainment (June 15, 2004);

(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;

(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible;

(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO X , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO X , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO X emissions inventories for the Wayne County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO X (e.g., “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO X emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources * 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stationary Area Sources 3.12 2.80 2.92 Highway Vehicles 2.54 1.66 0.96 Nonroad Sources 7.61 8.66 6.10 Total 13.27 13.12 9.98 * Values are greater than zero. Values appear as zero due to rounding. Table 2.—NO X Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.10 0.10 0.10 Stationary Area Sources 0.32 0.34 0.36 Highway Vehicles 4.20 2.60 1.12 Nonroad Sources 1.46 1.35 0.99 Total 6.08 4.39 2.57 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO X emissions in the Wayne County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. *Maintenance demonstration:* As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the Wayne County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO X remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Wayne County Area. Further details of Wayne County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. *Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:* With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. *Contingency Plan:* Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Wayne County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Wayne County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Wayne County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, Subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Wayne County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 3, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-7875 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 08-737; MB Docket No. 08-43; RM-11420] Radio Broadcasting Services; Basin, Wyoming AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by White Park Broadcasting, Inc., requesting the allotment of Channel 3000C3 at Basin, Wyoming, as the community's second local aural transmission service. Channel 300C3 can be allotted at Basin, Wyoming, without a site restriction at coordinates 44-22-48 NL, and 108-02-18 WL. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 19, 2008, and reply comments on or before June 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel as follows: Barry A. Friedman, Esq., Thompson Hine, LLP, Suite 800, 1920 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 08-43, adopted March 26, 2008, and released March 28, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wyoming is amended by adding Basin, Channel 300C3. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-7883 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179 [Docket No. FRA-2006-25169] RIN 2130-AB69 Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: On April 1, 2008, PHMSA, in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)proposing revisions to the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations to improve the crashworthiness of railroad tank cars designed to transport poison inhalation hazard

(PIH)materials. Specifically, the NPRM proposes enhanced tank car performance standards for head and shell impacts; operational restrictions for trains hauling tank cars containing PIH materials; interim operational restrictions for trains hauling tank cars containing PIH materials, but not meeting the enhanced performance standards; and an allowance to increase the gross weight of tank cars that meet the enhanced tank-head and shell puncture-resistance requirements. This notice announces that PHMSA and FRA will hold a series of public meetings (May 14, 15, 28, and 29, 2008 in Washington, DC) related to the NPRM. Information on the scope, topics, dates, and locations of these public meetings is provided in this notice. DATES: *Public meetings:* May 14, 15, 28, and 29, 2008, starting at 9 a.m., in Washington, DC. Further information on the agenda and topics to be discussed at each meeting is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. *Written Comments:* In accordance with the timeframe established by the NPRM, comments to this docket must be received no later than May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: *Public meetings:* The meetings will be held at the Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005. *Oral Presentations:* Any person wishing to present an oral statement at any of the public meetings should notify Lucinda Henriksen, by e-mail or telephone, at least four business days before the date of the public meeting at which the person wishes to speak. For information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact Ms. Henriksen as soon as possible. *Written Comments:* We invite interested parties who are unable to attend the meetings, or who otherwise desire to submit written comments or data to submit any relevant information, data, or comments to the docket of this proceeding (FRA-2006-25169) by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucinda Henriksen, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration ( *Lucinda.Henriksen@dot.gov* or

(202)493-1345), or Bill Schoonover, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration ( *William.Schoonover@dot.gov* or

(202)493-6229). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 1, 2008, PHMSA, in consultation with FRA, published an NPRM proposing revisions to the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to improve the crashworthiness of railroad tank cars designed to transport PIH materials. As explained in more detail in the NPRM, DOT's tank car research has shown that the rupture of tank cars and loss of lading are principally associated with the car-to-car impacts that occur as a result of derailments and train-to-train collisions. Conditions during an accident can be of such force that a coupler of one car impacts the head or the shell of a tank car. With sufficient speed, such impacts can lead to rupture and loss of lading. When a tank car is transporting PIH materials, the consequences of that loss of lading can be catastrophic. Based on the information currently available, DOT believes that a significant opportunity exists to enhance the safety of hazardous materials transportation, and in direct response to the Congressional directive of 49 U.S.C. 20155, in the NPRM we propose revisions to the HMR that would improve the accident survivability of railroad tank cars used to transport PIH materials. Specifically, in the NPRM we propose to require: • A maximum speed limit of 50 mph for all railroad tank cars used to transport PIH materials; • A maximum speed limit of 30 mph in non-signaled (i.e., dark) territory for all railroad tank cars transporting PIH materials, unless the material is transported in a tank car meeting the enhanced tank-head and shell puncture-resistance systems performance standards proposed; • As an alternative to the maximum speed limit of 30 mph in dark territory, submission for FRA approval of a complete risk assessment and risk mitigation strategy establishing that operating conditions over the subject track provide at least an equivalent level of safety as that provided by signaled track; • Railroad tank cars used to transport PIH materials have a shell puncture-resistance system capable of withstanding impact at 25 mph and a tank-head puncture-resistance system capable of withstanding impact at 30 mph; • The expedited replacement of tank cars used for the transportation of PIH materials manufactured before 1989 with non-normalized steel head or shell construction; and • An allowance to increase the gross weight on rail for tank cars designed to meet the proposed enhanced tank-head and shell puncture-resistance systems performance standards. The public meetings will be held on the dates specified in the DATES section of this document and at the location specified in the ADDRESSES section. Although all interested parties are invited to participate in any of the public meetings, to ensure adequate time is allotted to the diverse issues involved in the proposal, DOT plans to limit the scope of each proceeding as outlined below. *May 14 and 15, 2008 Public Meetings:* The May 14 and 15, 2008 meetings will focus on the NPRM as it relates to the transportation by rail tank car of chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, the two PIH materials that constitute almost 80% of the total rail tank car PIH shipments each year. Specifically, we will focus on issues related to the transportation of chlorine on May 14th and issues related to the transportation of anhydrous ammonia on May 15th. *May 28, 2008 Public Meeting:* The May 28, 2008 meeting will include two distinct segments. The morning session will focus on the NPRM as it relates to the transportation by railroad tank car of PIH materials other than chlorine and anhydrous ammonia (e.g., ethylene oxide, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, etc.). The afternoon session of the May 28th meeting will address railroad-specific issues related to the NPRM (e.g., the operational restrictions proposed, role of the Tank Car Committee, impact of heavier tank cars on railroad infrastructure, etc.). Accordingly, anyone wishing to comment on the proposed rule as it relates to railroad operations, infrastructure, and any other railroad-specific issues, should attend the afternoon session on May 28, 2008. *May 29, 2008 Public Meeting:* The May 29, 2008 meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to present general comments related to the NPRM and/or any relevant concluding remarks. Although we welcome any comments, information or data relevant to the NPRM as it relates to the transportation of PIH materials by railroad tank car, as noted in the NPRM and accompanying documents, we specifically request comment on the following issues and questions: • Regarding the proposed performance standards for enhanced tank-head and shell protection, are there alternative strategies for enhancing the accident survivability of tank cars that may be as effective as, or more effective than, the proposed standards? Please include appropriate data and information demonstrating the effectiveness of such alternatives. • Regarding the proposed eight-year implementation period for tank cars to be brought into compliance with the enhanced performance standards proposed, we request comment as to the feasibility and costs of this implementation schedule, as well as suggestions for any alternatives. We are particularly interested in data and information concerning current tank car manufacturing capacity and whether capacity limitations will affect the proposed implementation period. • If the proposed rule is adopted, will it be necessary to maintain the requirement of 49 CFR 173.31(e)(2) that tank cars used to transport PIH materials be equipped with metal jackets? • Regarding the proposed speed restriction of 50 mph for all tank cars transporting PIH materials: ■ To what extent are tank cars containing PIH materials currently transported in accordance with the speed restrictions in AAR's Circular OT-55-I for “key trains”? ■ To the extent that tank cars containing PIH materials are not currently transported in “key trains,” but would be as a result of the proposed speed restriction (assuming carriers would marshal PIH cars into key trains to avoid the speed restriction on other trains), to what extent, if any, would this “marshalling” cause a delay in the delivery of PIH materials (or other hazardous or non-hazardous materials) in the train? What would be the cost of the delay? ■ Are there alternative approaches to the speed restrictions proposed that would reduce the consequences of a train derailment or accident involving PIH materials? If so, please provide supporting data demonstrating the effectiveness of the alternative approaches. • Regarding the proposed speed restriction of 30 mph for tank cars not meeting the enhanced performance standards, but used to transport PIH materials through unsignaled territory, are there additional approaches to limit any burdens associated with this speed limitation (e.g., should exceptions be made to the speed restriction based on population densities and/or land use patterns of the area abutting the track)? • Regarding the proposal to allow an increase to 286,000 pounds in the gross weight of tank cars: ■ To what extent has track infrastructure already been modified to accommodate these heavier cars and what was the cost associated with such upgrades? ■ What additional infrastructure modifications would be required to accommodate the heavier cars? ■ Would the number of PIH shipments along certain rail lines be expected to increase because existing infrastructure could not accommodate heavier cars? As noted in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Assessment

(IRFA)published in the NPRM (73 FR 17818, 17852 (Apr. 1, 2008)) we recognize that the proposals in the NPRM may impact certain small entities. However, at this time, we do not have enough information to determine whether the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, we encourage small entities potentially impacted by this proposal, particularly small agricultural operations which utilize anhydrous ammonia, to review the NPRM and accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA)and provide any relevant comments, data, or information related to the potential economic impact to small entities that would result from adoption of the proposals in the NPRM. As noted in the IRFA, we specifically request comment on the following issues and questions: • How many small shippers would be impacted by implementation of the proposed rule and what is the extent of such impact? • How many governmental jurisdictions that meet the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)definition of small entity own water treatment systems that utilize chlorine in their processing? What would be the expected impact of this proposed rule on such entities? Of small government jurisdictions currently utilizing chlorine in their water treatment systems, how many entities could feasibly substitute a non-dangerous or less lethal material (e.g., bleach) for chlorine? • How many agricultural operations that meet the SBA definition of small entity utilize anhydrous ammonia in their operations? What would be the expected impact of this proposed rule on such entities? Of small agricultural operations currently utilizing anhydrous ammonia in their operations, how many entities could feasibly substitute less dangerous materials (e.g., urea, urea ammonium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate) for anhydrous ammonia? • How many entities meeting the SBA definition of small entity own tank cars that would be subject to this rule? What would be the expected impact of this proposed rule on such entities? We also specifically request comment on the estimates of costs and benefits of implementing the proposed rule as detailed in the RIA, as well as the underlying assumptions noted in the RIA. PHMSA and FRA encourage all interested persons to participate in these proceedings. We encourage participants wishing to make oral statements to plan on attending the entire meeting for which they are scheduled, since DOT may not be able to accommodate competing demands to appear at specific times. We also encourage participants to focus their testimony at each meeting on the particular topics for that proceeding as outlined above. Documents A copy of the April 1, 2008 NPRM, the Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared in support of the NPRM, and any comments addressed to this docket are available through the DOT's docket system Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov* and/or Room W12-140 on the Plaza Level of the U.S. Department of Transportation Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2008, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106. Edward T. Mazzullo, Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. E8-7829 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 080310411-7566-01] RIN 0648-AU14 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence Fishing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to amend the subsistence fishery rules for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska. These regulations are necessary to address subsistence halibut management concerns in densely populated areas. This action is intended to support the conservation and management provisions of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. DATES: Comments must be received no later than May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AU14” by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Fax:

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

(pdf)formats to be accepted. Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)prepared for this action, as well as the environmental assessment

(EA)prepared for the original subsistence halibut action (68 FR 18145; April 15, 2003) may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2252, 907-271-2809; by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; or via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Carls, 907-586-7228 or *becky.carls@noaa.gov* , or Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228 or *peggy.murphy@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Need for Action Management of the Pacific halibut (hereafter halibut) fishery in and off Alaska is based on an international agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement, entitled the “Convention between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea” (Convention), was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and amended by the “Protocol Amending the Convention,” signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention, administered by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), is given effect in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC regulations are published in the **Federal Register** as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. NMFS published the IPHC's current annual management measures on March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12280). The Halibut Act also authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop halibut fishery regulations, including limited access regulations, in its geographic area of concern that would apply to nationals or vessels of the United States (Halibut Act, section 773(c)). Such an action by the Council is limited to only those regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations. Council-developed regulations must be approved and implemented by the Secretary. Any allocation of halibut fishing privileges must be fair and equitable and consistent with other applicable Federal law. The Council used its authority under the Halibut Act to recommend a subsistence halibut program in October 2000 to recognize and manage the subsistence fishery for halibut. The Secretary approved the Council's recommended subsistence halibut program and published implementing regulations on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18145), and codified the program in 50 CFR part 300-subpart E, authorizing a subsistence fishery for halibut in Convention waters off Alaska. In April 2002, the Council proposed a suite of amendments to its original subsistence halibut program while postponing several proposed amendments to be included in a separate action. Regulations implementing the initial suite of amendments to the original subsistence halibut program were published on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16742). These regulations

(1)changed the boundaries of the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-subsistence area;

(2)eliminated gear restrictions in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E;

(3)increased gear and harvest restrictions in Area 2C;

(4)allowed retention of legal-sized subsistence halibut with Community Development Quota halibut in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E;

(5)created a Community Harvest Permit

(CHP)system to mitigate increased gear and harvest restrictions in affected areas;

(6)created a Ceremonial and Educational Permit system to recognize customary and traditional tribal practices; and

(7)included the subsistence halibut program in the federal appeals process at 50 CFR 679.43. The Council revisited the postponed amendments in October 2004, and took final action on them in December 2004. This action proposes implementing regulations for the postponed amendments. Specifically, this action proposes six changes to the subsistence halibut regulations that would:

(1)revise the subsistence gear restrictions in Kodiak and add seasonal gear and vessel limits in Sitka Sound;

(2)add the village of Naukati to the list of eligible subsistence halibut communities;

(3)implement a possession limit to enhance enforcement;

(4)revise the definition of charter vessel;

(5)revise regulations regarding customary trade; and

(6)allow the use of special permits within non-subsistence use areas by tribes eligible for the permits. Additional administrative revisions to regulations include converting the gear and harvest restrictions from text to table format and revising language to consistently refer to Sitka Sound, rather than Sitka LAMP, and its defined area. None of the proposed actions are intended to change the amount of halibut harvested for subsistence. Information on alternatives considered and rejected may be found in the RIR and IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ). Subsistence Halibut Gear Restrictions The Council recommended increasing gear restrictions in two subareas of IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A. In Area 3A, the Council recommended lowering the maximum hook limit per vessel in the Kodiak Road Zone and Chiniak Bay (together referred to hereafter as Chiniak Bay) from 90 to 60 hooks. In Area 2C, the Council proposed additional seasonal gear and harvest restrictions in Sitka Sound. The Council recommended each of these provisions to address localized depletion concerns in those subareas. This proposed action would reduce the allowable hook limit in Chiniak Bay to no more than two times the per person limit of 30, except when fishing under a Ceremonial, Educational, or Community Harvest Permit. If one registered fisher is onboard the vessel, the maximum number of hooks on the gear set or retrieved in the course of fishing would be 30. If two registered fishers are onboard, the maximum number of hooks on gear set or retrieved in the course of fishing would be 60. However, unlike other parts of Area 3A that would be allowed up to 90 hooks if three registered fishers are onboard, at no time may the maximum number of hooks on gear set or retrieved in the course of fishing exceed 60 hooks per vessel in Chiniak Bay, except that under a Ceremonial, Educational, or Community Harvest Permit the limit would be 90 hooks per vessel. Under this action, NMFS would define Chiniak Bay based on the State of Alaska's definition of the Kodiak Road Zone found at 05 AAC 64.005. NMFS would define Chiniak Bay as all waters bounded by the shoreline and straight lines extending from Cape Chiniak (57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.), to Buoy #1 at Williams Reef (57°50.36′ N. lat., 152°8.82′ W. long.), to East Cape on Spruce Island (57°54.89′ N. lat., 152°19.45′ W. long.), to Termination Point on Kodiak Island (57°51.31′ N. lat., 152°24.01′ W. long.), and connecting to a line running counterclockwise along the shoreline of Kodiak Island to Cape Chiniak (57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.). NMFS proposes this definition because latitude and longitude reference points do not vary and can be easily drawn on paper and electronic charting systems. The proposed area also includes the vast majority of local small-vessel sport and subsistence grounds historically fished for halibut, while maintaining consistency with the area targeted by the Council's proposed Kodiak Road Zone recommendation. Consistent with previous applications of the Community Harvest Permit

(CHP)Program, the Council recommended allowing the use of a CHP in Area 3A, including Chiniak Bay, to mitigate the proposed increased restrictions. The CHP Program allows a community or Alaska Native tribe to select individual harvesters who may possess particular expertise in halibut fishing to harvest halibut on behalf of the community or Alaska Native tribe. Possession of a CHP in Area 3A would allow an eligible tribe or community to use 30 hooks per person up to a maximum of 90 hooks per vessel. The Council also recommended additional gear restrictions and seasonal periods for gear restrictions in Sitka Sound to further address localized depletion concerns. This proposed action would reduce the allowable gear from 30 hooks to 15 hooks per vessel and prohibit power hauling during the summer months from June 1 through August 31. From September 1 through May 31 gear restrictions would remain at 30 hooks per vessel and power hauling would be allowed. The gear restrictions in this proposed rule would apply only to gear in use by eligible subsistence fishermen. By applying the gear restrictions to gear “set or retrieved” from a vessel, the gear restrictions apply only to gear actively engaged in subsistence fishing for halibut. A subsistence fisherman may possess any amount of gear onboard the vessel as long as that amount of gear actively being used does not exceed the prescribed limits. For instance, a box of extra hooks stored onboard a vessel or a fully rigged set of spare gear in a vessel would not count toward the subsistence gear restriction because the gear is not in use. This proposed rule also intends to further clarify any ambiguity in the gear restrictions by converting the original text of the gear restrictions to a table format. Because of this conversion to a table format, information in the regulatory text at § 300.65(h)(1)(i)(D) concerning the use of setline gear in Sitka Sound would be moved to § 300.65(e)(5). Eligible Subsistence Halibut Communities Persons eligible to conduct subsistence halibut fishing include

(1)residents of rural places with customary and traditional uses of halibut and

(2)all identified members of federally recognized Alaska Native tribes with a finding of customary and traditional uses of halibut. A list of rural communities and Alaska Native tribes eligible to fish for subsistence halibut may be found at § 300.65(g). The list of rural places recommended by the Council and approved by the Secretary was derived from customary and traditional findings for halibut and bottomfish made by the Alaska State Board of Fisheries (Board) prior to the Alaska Supreme Court decision, McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). Following McDowell, State regulations directed the Board to determine whether each fish stock in subsistence use areas of the State is subject to customary and traditional uses. Therefore, the customary and traditional use determination process does not focus on communities or areas that conduct the use, but on the pattern of use of a fish stock. Although the Council engages in a community-based approach, nothing prevents the Board from nominating areas, such as remote homesteads, for eligibility for subsistence halibut. The Council and Secretary retain exclusive authority to recommend changes to the list of rural places in § 300.65(g)(1). The Council initially recognized that some rural communities not explicitly named in the list may seek a finding of customary and traditional use of halibut, and established a policy to include those communities if customary and traditional findings were made. Residents who believed that their rural place was incorrectly omitted from the eligibility listing for rural places, or who were seeking eligibility for the first time, were encouraged to seek a customary and traditional finding from the Board before petitioning the Council. In October 2003, the Board received seven appeals from communities and individuals requesting positive customary and traditional use findings for halibut. The Board forwarded only two proposals to the Council: Port Tongass Village and Naukati. The remaining petitions failed because the petitioners were located within non-subsistence use areas and did not fit the stated criteria. In December 2004, the Council recommended a provision to include Naukati as an eligible rural community for subsistence halibut purposes based on the Board's recommendation. The Council declined including Port Tongass Village following testimony and evidence that indicated the proposed rural community consists of only one individual. The Council determined that this was an insufficient number of residents to qualify as a community. However, the Council affirmed the Board's determination that Naukati is a rural community with customary and traditional use of halibut and recommended adding Naukati as a rural community for subsistence halibut purposes consistent with the Council's policy to include communities for which customary and traditional findings are made by the Board. Therefore, under this proposed rule, NMFS would add only Naukati to the list of eligible communities found at § 300.65(g)(1). Subsistence Halibut Harvest Restrictions In general, eligible subsistence fishermen may retain up to 20 halibut per day as a daily bag limit, except in Area 2C where only 20 halibut per vessel per day may be retained, and Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E where no limits on retention apply. In October 2003, the IPHC staff suggested that subsistence regulations allowed a substantial increase in harvest that necessitated more effective monitoring. The IPHC specifically expressed concern with overall enforcement of the subsistence program and the allowable possession of halibut. The IPHC identified that enforcement officers currently possess no means to verify time on the water for subsistence halibut fishermen who possess more than one daily bag limit, thereby hampering accurate accounting of halibut removals. The Council subsequently recommended implementing a possession limit to restrict potential abuses of the daily bag limit and enhance enforcement of daily harvest limits. Based on the recommendation of the IPHC, the Council recommended that the proposed possession limit apply to Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B, which have experienced increased fishing effort due to higher population density. The Council determined that no possession limit was necessary for Areas 4A and 4B because those areas were not experiencing corresponding increases in fishing effort and population density. This proposed action would implement a possession limit of one daily bag limit for Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B. For instance, current regulations restrict a fisherman in Area 2C to 20 halibut per vessel per day, thus that fisherman's possession limit would be equal to his or her daily bag limit. Likewise, current regulations restrict a fisherman in Areas 3A and 3B to 20 halibut per person per day, so that fisherman's possession limit would be equal to his or her daily bag limit. Bag limits within Sitka Sound in Area 2C also would be subject to this action. Therefore, the possession limit within Sitka Sound would be 10 halibut per vessel from September 1 to May 31 and 5 halibut per vessel from June 1 through August 31. This proposed action would not apply in Areas 4A and 4B. This proposed action would have no effect in Areas 4C, 4D, or 4E because no daily bag limit exists in those areas. This proposed action also would have no effect on the retention limits allowed for CHPs, Ceremonial Permits, or Educational Permits. Charter Vessel Prohibition Current regulations prohibit the retention of subsistence halibut harvested using a charter vessel, which is defined at § 300.61 as “a vessel used for hire in sport fishing for halibut, but not including a vessel without a hired operator.” NOAA Enforcement expressed difficulty enforcing the prohibition under the current definition because of problems associated with determining whether a vessel operator is “for hire.” The Council subsequently clarified that the prohibition was meant only to prohibit subsistence fishers from hiring someone to take them subsistence fishing, but not to prohibit the use of vessels registered as charter vessels from being used for subsistence fishing. NOAA Enforcement recommended revising the definition of charter vessel to improve enforcement of the prohibition consistent with the Council's intent. The Council adopted NOAA Enforcement's recommendation and provided additional guidance to ensure the prohibition continued to restrict subsistence fishing on charter vessels. In December 2004, the Council recommended revising the definition of charter vessel to “a vessel registered as such with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.” NOAA Enforcement believed this definition would improve the identification of vessels used illegally as charter vessels for subsistence halibut and the enforcement of other charter vessel restrictions. NOAA Enforcement has since recommended using the term “sport fishing guide vessel” in the regulatory definition for a charter vessel because this is the term used in State of Alaska regulations at 05 AAC 75.077. The Council further recommended, and NMFS proposes, a provision that would allow a charter vessel to be used for subsistence halibut fishing, but use for that purpose must be restricted to the owner of record as indicated on the State of Alaska vessel registration, provided the owner is eligible to fish for subsistence halibut, and the owner's immediate family. This provision would allow qualified subsistence halibut fishers who also engage in charter fishing to use their vessels to conduct subsistence fishing, but limit such fishing to the vessel owner and his or her immediate family. The Council recommended not defining “immediate family” in regulation. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, the prohibition of the use of a charter vessel for subsistence halibut fishing while charter clients are onboard the vessel and prohibiting the transfer of subsistence halibut to charter clients to prevent abuses of the proposed charter vessel allowance. The prohibition against subsistence fishing while charter clients are onboard would prevent the vessel owner or any other person onboard the vessel from engaging in subsistence fishing at any time while a charter client is onboard the vessel. This would preclude the use of any gear not classified as sport fishing gear or retaining any halibut in excess of the sport limits while charter clients are onboard any vessel. Additionally, a prohibition of the transfer of subsistence halibut to charter clients would apply at all times, meaning that at no time may subsistence halibut be provided by a charter operator to any person who has chartered a sportfishing trip with that charter operator. Customary and Traditional Trade Restrictions Current regulations at § 300.66(j) specify that it is unlawful for any person to retain or possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes; cause subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered, or otherwise entered into commerce; or solicit exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial purposes, except that a qualified subsistence fisherman may engage in the customary trade of subsistence halibut through monetary exchange of no more than $400 per year. The Council originally intended that the $400 annual limit would allow a person who receives subsistence halibut from an eligible subsistence halibut fisherman, to help defer the donating fisherman's costs of harvesting subsistence halibut. The Council was concerned that continuing the $400 customary trade limit would confound Council intent by allowing de facto “sale” of subsistence halibut outside customary and traditional trade. In June 2003, the Council's Enforcement Committee reviewed issues related to customary trade and determined that

(1)despite the Council's intent to not create a new commercial fishery, current regulations essentially allow the sale of subsistence halibut up to the $400 annual limit;

(2)the $400 annual limit lacks enforceability because enforcement officers cannot easily distinguish between sale and customary and traditional exchange for cash; and

(3)current regulations do not clearly prohibit advertising and solicitation for commercial sale. The Enforcement Committee recommended the Council revise the customary trade restrictions to meet the original intent of allowing customary and traditional trade. On the suggestion of the Enforcement Committee, the Council recommended revising the regulations to eliminate customary trade for cash. The Council additionally determined that the identification of a dollar amount for the allowance of customary trade in the regulations resulted in some subsistence users “selling” halibut to other subsistence users outside of customary and traditional practices, and that the dollar amount effectively served as a target rather than a limit. NOAA Enforcement also reported subsistence halibut illegally entering the commercial market, due in part to the difficulty of enforcing the $400 annual limit. This proposed action would eliminate the $400 customary trade limit and restrict any monetary exchange for subsistence halibut specifically to reimbursement of actual trip expenses directly related to the harvest of subsistence halibut. Actual trip expenses would be limited to ice, bait, food, or fuel only. Additional restrictions would be applied separately to rural community residents and Alaska Native tribal members. Under this proposed action, persons who qualify as rural residents under § 300.65(g)(1) and hold a subsistence halibut registration certificate (SHARC) in their name under § 300.65(i) may be reimbursed only by residents of the same rural community listed on his or her subsistence halibut registration certificate. For example, a rural community resident in Hoonah may be reimbursed for actual trip expenses directly related to subsistence halibut fishing by another resident of Hoonah but may not be reimbursed by a resident of Sitka. The Council proposed this restriction as an additional measure to discourage the entry of subsistence halibut into commerce. Additionally, under this proposed action, persons who qualify as Alaska Native tribal members under § 300.65(g)(2) and hold a SHARC in their name under § 300.65(i) would be eligible for reimbursement only from an Alaska Native tribe or its members. For example, a tribal SHARC holder from the Kenaitze Indian Tribe may be reimbursed by a member of the Gwichin Athabascan Indian Tribe. However, persons possessing a SHARC designated as tribal would be ineligible to receive reimbursement from anyone other than another Alaska Native tribe or its members. Special Permits in Non-subsistence Areas Generally, eligible persons may harvest subsistence halibut in all Convention waters in and off Alaska except for the four designated non-subsistence marine areas: the Ketchikan non-subsistence marine waters area, the Juneau non-subsistence marine waters area, the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-subsistence marine waters area, and the Valdez non-subsistence marine waters area (§ 300.65(h)(3) and Figures 2-5 to subpart E). In December 2004, the Council recommended allowing the use of Ceremonial Permits and Educational Permits in non-subsistence marine areas by tribes whose traditional fishing grounds are located within Areas 2C and 3A. This proposed action would allow twelve Alaska Native tribes whose traditional fishing grounds fall within Areas 2C and 3A to conduct subsistence halibut fishing in areas currently designated as non-subsistence marine areas. Therefore, if persons on a vessel possess a Ceremonial Permit or an Educational Permit, they would be allowed to conduct subsistence fishing in the non-subsistence marine areas subject to other existing regulations. Use of Ceremonial Permits and Educational Permits within non-subsistence marine areas would remain subject to gear and harvest restrictions for those permits consistent with the IPHC regulatory area in which they are used. Ceremonial Permits and Educational Permits allow Alaska Native tribes in Areas 2C and 3A as listed in § 300.65(g)(2) to harvest up to 25 halibut per permit. Ceremonial Permits and Educational Permits in non-subsistence marine areas maintain the same gear limitations as those required when fishing under a SHARC in Areas 2C and 3A (i.e., 30 hooks per vessel in Area 2C and 30 hooks per person or up to 90 hooks per vessel in Area 3A). Ceremonial Permits and Educational Permits also have unique application and reporting requirements (§ 300.65(j) and (k)). Classification The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the halibut fishery and that it is consistent with the Halibut Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule also complies with the Secretary's authority under the Halibut Act to implement management measures for the halibut fishery. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. Copies of this analysis are available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). This proposed rule would implement six actions to amend the subsistence halibut regulations:

(1)revise the subsistence gear restrictions in Kodiak and add seasonal gear and vessel limits in the Sitka Sound area;

(2)add the village of Naukati to the list of eligible subsistence halibut communities;

(3)implement a possession limit equal to one daily bag limit to enhance enforcement;

(4)revise the definition of charter vessel;

(5)revise regulations regarding customary trade; and

(6)allow the use of special permits within non-subsistence use areas by tribes eligible for the permits. Only actions 1 and 6 would directly regulate “small entities,” as defined by the RFA. The remaining four actions are not addressed because they affect individuals, rather than “entities,” as defined by RFA. All attributable impacts on directly regulated small entities, accruing from either action, appear to be beneficial. Action 1 would directly regulate Alaska Native tribes, or governmental entities in the absence of a tribe, that are eligible to participate in the subsistence halibut program off Kodiak and Chiniak Bay. Action 1 would govern nine Alaska Native tribes. Action 6 would affect thirteen Alaska Native tribes, but no governmental entities. It is NMFS policy to consider only adverse impacts when preparing an IRFA, consistent with the intent of Congress to minimize effects on small entities. No such adverse impacts appear to be associated with Actions 1 and 6. However, detailed information and empirical data about the operational structures, strategies, and fiscal conditions of the various Alaska Native tribes, which are likely to be directly regulated by the proposed actions, are not presently available to the analysts to support preparation of a factual basis upon which to certify, under RFA provisions. Therefore, the Council prepared an IRFA to fulfill the requirements of the RFA, despite the high probability that the actions will not have a substantial adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities, as these terms are defined under the RFA. Proposed actions 1 and 6 aim to enhance management of the subsistence halibut fishery as it pertains to use by Alaska Native tribes for the purpose of recognizing and appropriately accommodating subsistence practices. These actions are taken under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. The principal decisions in the preferred alternatives for actions 1 and 6 address changes to

(1)gear limits and the use of Community Harvest Permits

(CHPs)by Alaska Native tribes in Kodiak and Chiniak Bay, and seasonal gear and vessel limits in Sitka Sound; and

(2)fishing in non-subsistence use areas. The preferred alternatives to implement CHPs for Alaska Native tribes in Kodiak and Chiniak Bay (CHPs are not allowed in Sitka Sound) under action 1, and to allow ceremonial and educational permits to be used by Alaska Native tribes in non-subsistence use areas under action 6, directly regulate small entities. The Council addressed multiple alternatives for each action under the RFA. Under action 1, the Council analyzed three alternatives:

(1)no action;

(2)change gear restrictions and annual limits in Kodiak, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and the Sitka LAMP; and

(3)change gear restrictions and annual limits only in Kodiak and the Sitka LAMP. The Council selected alternative 3 as the preferred alternative for action 1. For action 6, the Council analyzed three alternatives:

(1)no action;

(2)allow the use of CHPs, educational permits, and ceremonial permits in non-subsistence use areas by tribes whose traditional fishing grounds are located within IPHC Areas 2C and 3A, with the associated daily bag limit; and

(3)allow the use of educational permits and ceremonial permits, but not CHPs, in non-subsistence use areas by tribes whose traditional fishing grounds are located within IPHC Areas 2C and 3A, with the associated daily bag limit. The Council selected alternative 3 as the preferred alternative for action 6. Based on the best available scientific data and information, the IRFA (including the RIR) reveals that none of the significant alternatives to the proposed action, other than the preferred alternatives, have the potential to accomplish the objectives of the Council consistent with the Halibut Act, the RFA, and other applicable statutes, and minimize the adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule on directly regulated small entities. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)and which have been approved by OMB. These collections are listed by control number. OMB Control Number 0648-0460 Public reporting burden is estimated to average ten minutes for Subsistence halibut registration certificate (SHARC) for rural or individual use and ten minutes for SHARC for tribal use. OMB Control Number 0648-0512 Public reporting burden for a Subsistence Halibut Special Permit Application for ceremonial harvest, education harvest, or community harvest is estimated to average ten minutes per response. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with these actions. Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat 3267), extends the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. Consultations with the Alaska Native Subsistence Halibut Working Group, under Executive Order 13175, resulted in recommendations to allow the use of special permits in non-subsistence use areas. NMFS will contact tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations which may be affected by the proposed action, provide them with a copy of this proposed rule, and offer them an opportunity to consult. List of Subjects for 50 CFR Part 300 Pacific halibut fisheries, Alaska, Alaska Natives, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: April 8 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300, subpart E as follows: PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. 2. In § 300.61 add definitions of “Chiniak Bay” and “Power hauling” in alphabetical order and revise the definition of “Charter vessel” to read as follows: § 300.61 Definitions. *Charter vessel* means a vessel registered as a sport fishing guide vessel with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. *Chiniak Bay* means all waters bounded by the shoreline and straight lines connecting the coordinates in the order listed: north from Cape Chiniak (57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.); to Buoy #1 at Williams Reef (57°50.36′ N. lat., 152°8.82′ W. long.); to East Cape on Spruce Island (57°54.89′ N. lat., 152°19.45′ W. long.); to Termination Point on Kodiak Island (57°51.31′ N. lat., 152°24.01′ W. long.); and connecting to a line running counterclockwise along the shoreline of Kodiak Island to Cape Chiniak (57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.). Power hauling means using electrically, hydraulically, or mechanically powered devices or attachments or other assisting devises or attachments to deploy and retrieve fishing gear. Power hauling does not include the use of hand power, a hand powered crank, a fishing rod, a downrigger, or a hand troll gurdy. 3. In § 300.65: A. Revise paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) introductory text, (h)(1)(i), (h)(2),

(j)introductory text, (j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(iii), (j)(3)(i) introductory text, (j)(3)(i)(A), (k)(3)(i), and (k)(3)(ii). B. Add paragraph (e)(5). C. In paragraph (g)(1) in the table entitled “Halibut Regulatory Area 2C” an entry for “Naukati” is added in alphabetical order. The additions and revisions read as follows: § 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in waters in and off Alaska.

(e)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)With respect to paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5) of this section, that part of the Commission regulatory area 2C that is enclosed on the north and east:

(5)Setline gear may not be used in a 4 nm radius extending south from Low Island at 57°00.70′ N. lat., 135°36.57′ W. long. within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, from June 1 through August 31.

(g)* * *

(1)* * * Halibut Regulatory Area 2C Rural Community Organized Entity * * * * * * * Naukati Municipality * * * * * * *

(h)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)Subsistence fishing gear set or retrieved from a vessel while engaged in subsistence fishing for halibut must not have more than the allowable hooks per vessel, or per person registered in accordance with paragraph

(i)of this section and aboard the vessel, whichever is less, according to the regulatory area and permit type indicated in the following table: Regulatory Area Permit Type Gear Restrictions 2C (Except Sitka Sound) SHARC 30 hooks per vessel Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per vessel Educational Permit 30 hooks per vessel Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks Sitka Sound SHARC September 1 through May 31: 30 hooks per vessel June 1 through August 31: 15 hooks per vessel; no power hauling Ceremonial Permit September 1 through May 31: 30 hooks per vessel June 1 through August 31: fishing under Ceremonial Permit not allowed Educational Permit 30 hooks per vessel Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not allowed 3A (Except Chiniak Bay) SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per person onboard Educational Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Chiniak Bay SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Educational Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel 3B SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel 4A and 4B SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks per vessel 4C, 4D, and 4E SHARC no hook limit

(2)The retention of subsistence halibut is limited per person eligible to conduct subsistence fishing for halibut and onboard the vessel according to the following table: Regulatory Area Permit Type Retention Limits 2C (Except Sitka Sound) SHARC 20 halibut per day per vessel and in possession Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit Community Harvest Permit no daily or possession limit Sitka Sound SHARC September 1 through May 31: 10 halibut per day per vessel and in possession June 1 through August 31: 5 halibut per day per vessel and in possession Ceremonial Permit September 1 through May 31: 25 halibut per permit June 1 through August 31: fishing under Ceremonial Permit not allowed Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not allowed 3A, including Chiniak Bay SHARC 20 halibut per person per day and in possession Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit Community Harvest Permit no daily or possession limit 3B SHARC 20 halibut per person per day and in possession 4A and 4B SHARC 20 halibut per person per day; no possession limit 4C, 4D, and 4E SHARC no daily or possession limit

(j)*Community Harvest Permit (CHP)* . An Area 2C or Area 3A community or Alaska Native tribe listed in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section may apply for a CHP, which allows a community or Alaska Native tribe to appoint one or more individuals from its respective community or Alaska Native tribe to harvest subsistence halibut from a single vessel under reduced gear and harvest restrictions. The CHP consists of a harvest log and up to five laminated permit cards. A CHP is a permit subject to regulation under § 679.4(a) of this title.

(1)* * *

(ii)NMFS will issue a CHP to a community in Area 2C or Area 3A only if:

(A)The applying community is listed as eligible in Area 2C or Area 3A according to paragraph (g)(1) of this section; and

(B)No Alaska Native tribe listed in paragraph (g)(2) of this section exists in that community.

(iii)NMFS will issue a CHP to an Alaska Native tribe in Area 2C or Area 3A only if the applying tribe is listed as eligible in Area 2C or Area 3A according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

(3)* * *

(i)In Area 2C or Area 3A, except that a CHP may not be used:

(A)Within Sitka Sound as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (see Figure 1 to this subpart E); or

(k)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)In Area 3A;

(ii)In Area 2C, except a Ceremonial Permit may not be used within Sitka Sound from June 1 through August 31; 4. In § 300.66: A. Redesignate paragraphs

(j)through

(m)as paragraphs

(k)through (n), respectively. B. Revise paragraph

(i)and newly redesignated paragraph (k). C. Add new paragraph (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 300.66 Prohibitions.

(i)Fish for subsistence halibut from a charter vessel or retain subsistence halibut onboard a charter vessel if anyone other than the owner of record, as indicated on the State of Alaska vessel registration, or the owner's immediate family is aboard the charter vessel and unless each person engaging in subsistence fishing onboard the charter vessel holds a subsistence halibut registration certificate in the person's name pursuant to § 300.65(i) and abides by the gear and harvest restrictions found at § 300.65(h).

(j)Transfer subsistence halibut to charter vessel anglers.

(k)Retain or possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes; cause subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered, or otherwise entered into commerce; or solicit exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial purposes, except that a person who qualified to conduct subsistence fishing for halibut under § 300.65(g), and who holds a subsistence halibut registration certificate in the person's name under § 300.65(i), may be reimbursed for the expense of fishing for subsistence halibut under the following conditions:

(1)Persons who qualify as rural residents under § 300.65(g)(1) and hold a subsistence halibut registration certificate in the persons's name under § 300.65(i) may be reimbursed for actual expenses directly related to subsistence fishing for halibut, including only ice, bait, food, or fuel, by residents of the same rural community listed on the person's subsistence halibut registration certificate; or

(2)Persons who qualify as Alaska Native tribal members under § 300.65(g)(2) and hold a subsistence halibut registration certificate in the person's name under § 300.65(i) may be reimbursed for actual expenses directly related to subsistence fishing for halibut, including only ice, bait, food, or fuel, by any Alaska Native tribe or its members. [FR Doc. E8-7902 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No.080326475-8477-01] RIN 0648-XG22 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline

(HG)for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. This HG has been determined according to the regulations implementing the Coastal Pelagic Species

(CPS)Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)and establishes allowable harvest levels for Pacific sardine off the Pacific coast. DATES: Comments must be received by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by 0648-XG22 by any of the following methods:• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. • Fax: (562)980-4047 Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2008” may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see the Mailing address above). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS,

(562)980-4034. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into two categories: actively managed and monitored. Harvest guidelines for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates. Biomass estimates are not calculated for species that are only monitored (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid). During public meetings each year, the biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team

(Team)and the Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel). At that time, the biomass, the acceptable biological catch

(ABC)and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. This information is then presented to the Council along with HG recommendations and comments from the Team and Subpanel. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council makes its HG recommendation to NMFS. The annual HG is published in the **Federal Register** as close as practicable to the start of the fishing season. For actively managed CPS stocks, full assessments and the accompanying Stock Assessment Review

(STAR)process typically occur every third year and were last completed in 2004. Therefore, for this 2007 cycle, a full assessment for Pacific sardine was conducted and reviewed by a STAR Panel in La Jolla, California, September 18-21, 2007. This assessment produced an estimated biomass of 832,706 mt. Applying this biomass number to the harvest control rule in the FMP produces an acceptable biological catch

(ABC)for the 2008 fishery of 89,093 metric tons (mt). In November, the Council held a public meeting in San Diego, California (72 FR 59256) during which time the Team, Subpanel, CPS Subcommitee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)and the Council reviewed the current stock assessment, biomass numbers and ABC. Following their review of the assessment, associated biomass and ABC and after hearing reports by the SSC, Team and Subpanel the Council adopted an ABC or HG of 89,093 mt for the 2008 fishing year. This ABC is 42 percent less than the ABC/HG adopted by the Council for the 2007 fishing season. The Pacific sardine HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999, June 29, 2006) to the CPS FMP: 35 percent is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations is released. If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery will be closed via appropriate rulemaking until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the **Federal Register** the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine. Based on recommendations by the Team, and the potential that seasonal allocation totals may be attained during the 2008 fishing year due to the decrease in the HG, the Council also adopted a set aside of 8,909 mt (10 percent of the ABC). Implementation of the set aside would establish a directed harvest fishery of 80,184 mt and an incidental fishery of 8,909 mt. This incidental fishery would allow for incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other fisheries and prevent the closure of such fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, if a seasonal directed fishery total is reached and directed fishing is closed. In turn the set aside would also help to ensure the fishery does not exceed the ABC. The proposed set aside is based on recent annual incidental sardine landing rates in other fisheries during each of the seasonal allocation periods. The set-aside would initially be allocated across these periods in the following way: January 1-June 30, 26,550 mt is to be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 4,633 mt; July 1-September 14, 34,568 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,069 mt; September 15-December 31, 19,066 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 3,207 mt. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, only incidental harvest will be allowed and, for the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings will be counted against that period's incidental set aside. The proposed incidental fishery will also be constrained to a 20 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS to minimize targeting of Pacific sardine and to maximize landings of harvestable stocks. In the event that an incidental set aside is projected to be attained, all fisheries will be closed to the retention of Pacific sardine for the remainder of the period via appropriate rulemaking. If the set aside is not fully attained or is exceeded in a given seasonal period, the directed harvest allocation in the following seasonal period will be automatically adjusted to account for the discrepancy. The size of the sardine population was estimated using the Stock Synthesis 2

(SS2)model platform. Use of the SS2 model was recommended by the CPS STAR Panel held in September 2007, in La Jolla, California. The SS2 model platform replaces the Age-structured Assessment Program

(ASAP)that has been used the previous three years. The STAR Panel concluded that the ASAP model had a number of difficulties that SS2 was able overcome, including: 1) allowance for some sardine to spawn at age-0, 2) differences in timing of the fisheries throughout the range, 3) estimation of initial conditions, 4) variability in weight-at-age among fisheries and between the fishery and population, and 5) log-normal bias correction for the stock-recruitment relationship. Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2008” (see ADDRESSES). The formula in the CPS FMP uses the following factors to determine the HG: 1. *Biomass.* The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above for the 2008 management season is 832,706 mt. 2. *Cutoff.* This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt. 3. *Distribution.* The portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters. 4. *Fraction.* The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested. The fraction used varies (5-15 percent) with current ocean temperatures; a higher fraction for warmer ocean temperatures and a lower fraction for cooler temperatures. Warmer ocean temperatures favor the production of Pacific sardine. For 2008, the fraction used was 15 percent, based on three seasons of sea surface temperature at Scripps Pier, California. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows: The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2008 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the harvest formula in the FMP. The harvest formula is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to determine the ABC, from which the HG is then derived. The HG is determined using an environmentally-based formula accounting for the effect of ocean conditions on stock productivity. The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35 percent of the HG is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent of the HG, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the HG and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS finish fleet. Approximately 107 vessels are permitted to operate in the sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 63 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. This proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. These vessels are considered small business entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration since the vessels do not have annual receipts in excess of $4.0 million. Therefore, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action. The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable. For the 2007 fishing year, the HG was set at 152,564 mt with an estimated ex-vessel value of $18 million. Around 136,000 mt (89,000 in California and 47,000 in Oregon and Washington) of this HG was actually harvested during the 2007 fishing season valued at an estimated $14 million. The proposed HG for the 2008 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008) is 89,093 metric tons (mt). If the fleet were to take the entire 2008 HG, and assuming a coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $110, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $10 million. Although the HG for 2008 is 42 percent lower than the HG for 2007, a drop in profitability is not expected because the 2008 HG approximates the average catch from 2001-2006 of 85,000 mt. The sardine harvest depends greatly on market forces within the fishery, as well as the other CPS fisheries, and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets' ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested, in turn, reducing the total revenue to the fleet from Pacific sardine. The 2007 harvest was anomalously large, approximately 50,000 mt more than the 2001-2006 average. From 2001 through 2006, the average landings coastwide were approximately 85,000 mt with annual revenues during that time at approximately $10 million. Therefore at current ex-vessel price per mt, the harvest guideline for 2008 should provide revenue similar to revenues earned from 2001 through 2006. In addition, the revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is only one factor determining the overall revenue of the CPS fleet and therefore the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Any lower revenue from the harvest of Pacific sardine may be offset, in part, by harvest of these other species. Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 9, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7899 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Notice; Board of Directors Meeting Time: Monday, May 5, 2008, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Place: African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005. Date: Monday, May 5, 2008. Status: 1. Closed session, Monday, May 5, 2008, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.; and 2. Open session, Monday, May 5, 2008, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals wishing to attend the open session of the meeting must notify Doris Martin, General Counsel, at

(202)673-3916 or Michele M. Rivard at *mrivard@usadf.gov* of your request to attend by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. Lloyd O. Pierson, President. [FR Doc. E8-7819 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6117-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Advisory Committees AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a joint meeting, followed by separate and concurrently held meetings of the Census Advisory Committees

(CACs)on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations. The Committees will address issues related to the 2010 Decennial Census Program. The five Census Advisory Committees on Race and Ethnicity will meet in plenary and concurrent sessions on April 30-May 2. Last-minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent advance notification. DATES: April 30-May 2, 2008. On April 30, the meeting will begin at approximately 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m. On May 1, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:30 p.m. On May 2, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H182, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746, telephone

(301)763-2070, TTY

(301)457-2540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CACs on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations are comprised of nine members each. The Committees provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the race and ethnic populations they represent and the Census Bureau. The Committees provide an outside-user perspective and advice on research and design plans for the 2010 Decennial Census, the American Community Survey, and other related programs particularly as they pertain to an accurate count of these communities. The Committees also assist the Census Bureau on ways that census data can best be disseminated to diverse race and ethnic populations and other users. The Committees are established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, section 10(a)(b)). All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to Ms. Jeri Green at least three days before the meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as possible, preferably two weeks prior to the meeting. Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-2605 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor. Dated: April 8, 2008. Steve H. Murdock, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E8-7818 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-918) Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2008. SUMMARY: On March 25, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of steel wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 15726 (March 25, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). We are amending our *Preliminary Determination* to correct certain ministerial errors with respect to the antidumping duty margin calculation for the Shaoxing Metal Companies. 1 The corrections to the Shaoxing Metal Companies' margin also affect the margin assigned to the PRC-Wide entity and the margin applied to companies receiving a separate rate. 1 The Shaoxing Metal Companies are: Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (“Gangyuan”), Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (“Tongzhou7rdquo;) and Company X. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6905. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: On March 25, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary determination that steel wire garment hangers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). *See Preliminary Determination* . On March 25, 2008, the Shaoxing Metal Companies and certain separate-rate recipients 2 filed timely allegations of ministerial errors contained in the Department's *Preliminary Determination* . Additionally, on March 26, 2008, and March 27, 2008, Shaoxing Metal Companies and an interested party filed additional comments with respect to the ministerial error allegations, which the Department removed from the record pursuant to sections 351.224(c)(3) and 351.302(d) of the Department's regulations. 3 On March 27, 2008, M&B Metal Products Company, Inc. (“Petitioner7rdquo;) filed comments with respect to information missing from the public record that was referenced in Shaoxing Metal Companies' ministerial errors allegations. 2 The separate-rate recipients that submitted a ministerial error allegation are: Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd, Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Product Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Products Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Meideli Metal Products Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., (collectively, “SR Recipients”). 3 *See* Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China: Removal from the Official and Public Record of Untimely Ministerial Error Comments following the Preliminary Determination, dated March 31, 2008, and Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China: Additional Removal from the Official and Public Record of Untimely Ministerial Error Comments following the Preliminary Determination, dated March 31, 2008. After reviewing the allegations, we have determined that the *Preliminary Determination* included significant ministerial errors. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations, we have made changes, as described below, to the *Preliminary Determination* . 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* section 351.204(b)(1) of the Department's regulations. 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“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. Significant Ministerial Error Ministerial errors are defined in section 735(e) of the Act as “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” Section 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.” A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in

(1)a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination, or

(2)a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or *de minimis* and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than *de minimis* or vice versa. *See* section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Ministerial Error Allegations Brokerage and Handling and Freight The Shaoxing Metal Companies argue that the Department incorrectly applied the surrogate value for brokerage and handling and freight on a per-kilogram basis, rather than on a per-piece basis. The Shaoxing Metal Companies contend that the resulting weighted-average dumping margin was significantly inflated. *See* Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Shaoxing Entity, dated March 18, 2008. The Shaoxing Metal Companies state that a correction to the units of measure applied to the brokerage and handling and freight would significantly reduce the calculated dumping margin, and would constitute a significant error as set forth in the statute. Therefore, the Shaoxing Metal Companies urge that the unit of measure applied to the brokerage and handling and freight surrogate values be corrected in the margin calculation program and in the company analysis memorandum. We agree that the Department did not apply the correct unit of measure to the brokerage and handling and freight surrogate values. This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered in combination with the other corrections discussed below, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Adjustment to QTYUKG for Tongzhou's Sales The Shaoxing Metal Companies allege an additional clerical error with respect to the adjustment to the quantity expressed in kilograms (“QTYUKG”) field in Tongzhou's sales listing. The Shaoxing Metal Companies argue that a particular adjustment to the QTYUKG field in Tongzhou's sales listing, which is combined with the respective sales listings of Gangyuan and Andrew, was not made in the *Preliminary Determination* . The Shaoxing Metal Companies state that the failure to adjust this field in Tongzhou's sales listing also affects the margin calculation with respect to the units of measure applied to the brokerage and handling surrogate value. The sales database submitted by the Shaoxing Metal Companies contained the error within the QTYUKG field, which counsel for Tongzhou addressed through electronic mail communications to the Department. These communications included a method to adjust the QTYUKG field within the margin calculation program, which would correct the sales database. *See* Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Amended Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Shaoxing Metal Companies, dated concurrent with this **Federal Register** notice (“Shaoxing Metal Companies' Amended Prelim Analysis Memorandum”). Although counsel for Tongzhou provided this adjustment, we did not adjust for the QTYUKG field from Tongzhou's sales listing in the *Preliminary Determination* . This error qualifies as a ministerial error in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act. Moreover, when considered in combination with the other correction discussed above, this error constitutes a significant ministerial error in accordance with section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations. Amended Preliminary Determination We determine that these allegations qualify as ministerial errors as defined in section 351.224(g) of the Department's regulations because they result in a change of more than five absolute percentage points to the Shaoxing Metal Companies' dumping margin. Accordingly, we have corrected the errors alleged by the Shaoxing Metal Companies and the SR Recipients. *See* Shaoxing Metal Companies' Amended Prelim Analysis Memorandum. As a result of correcting the above errors in the Shaoxing Metal Companies' margin, the margin for the companies granted separate-rate status must also be revised because the margin for those companies was partially derived from the Shaoxing Metal Companies' margin. *See* Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Analyst; Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Weight-Averaged Margin for Separate Rate Companies, dated concurrent with this **Federal Register** notice. PRC-Wide Entity As a result of the Department's correction of the ministerial errors, we note that the PRC-Wide entity rate must also be revised. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department stated that “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, resulting in a single rate applicable to the PRC-Wide entity of 221.05 %%.” *See Preliminary Determination* . However, due to the correction of the ministerial errors, the resulting single rate applicable to the PRC-Wide entity is 182.44 %%, which is the simple average of: A) the weighted-average of the calculated rates for Shaoxing Metal Companies and Shanghai Wells and B) a simple average of petition rates based on U.S. prices and normal values within the range of the U.S. prices and normal values calculated for Shaoxing Metal Companies and Shanghai Wells. This 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 separate-rate recipients. *See* Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst; Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Corroboration Memorandum for the Amended Preliminary Determination, dated concurrent with this **Federal Register** notice. As a result of corrections of ministerial errors, the weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC - Amended 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” 56.98 %% Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd 45.69 %% Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. 45.69 %% Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. 45.69 %% Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. 45.69 %% Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 45.69 %% PRC-Wide Rate 4 182.44 %% 4 The PRC-Wide entity includes Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co. Ltd. The collection of bonds or cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised accordingly and parties will be notified of this determination, in accordance with section 733(d) and

(f)of the Act. Postponement Of The Final Determination In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department stated that it would make its final determination for this antidumping duty investigation no later than 75 days after the preliminary determination. Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioner. In addition, section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four month period to not more than six months. On March 25, 2008, Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., one of the two mandatory respondents, requested a 60-day extension of the final determination and extension of the provisional measures. Thus, because our amended preliminary determination is affirmative, and the respondent requesting a postponement of the final determination and an extension of the provisional measures, accounts for a significant proportion of exports of hangers, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the deadline for the final determination by 60 days until August 7, 2008, based on the publication date of the *Preliminary Determination* . International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our amended preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will 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 investigation, within 45 days of our final determination. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f), 735(a)(2), and 777(i) of the Act and sections 351.210(g) and 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 7, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7895 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-274-804) Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5973 and

(202)482-3692, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 26, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, covering the period October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 65938 (November 26, 2007). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than July 2, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of 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 in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Consistent with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it is not practicable to complete the review within a 245-day period. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable. Specifically, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively, petitioners) have raised a number of issues which require the collection of additional data and analysis. In addition, we need additional time to thoroughly consider the responses to the supplemental questionnaires the Department has sent to the respondent. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days to October 30, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR § 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than October 30, 2008. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 8, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7891 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-865 Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Quigley or Blaine Wiltse, 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)482-4047 and

(202)482-6345, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 61859 (November 1, 2007). On November 30, 2007, Nucor Corporation (“Petitioner”), a domestic producer of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively “Baosteel”). On December 27, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , (“Notice of Initiation”), 72 FR 73315 (December 27, 2007). On January 7, 2008, Baosteel submitted a letter stating that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 28, 2008, the Department sent an inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) requesting notification as to whether it had information indicating that there were shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Baosteel. The Department has not to date received any notification from CBP indicating that there were shipments of subject merchandise by Baosteel during the POR. The Department has also reviewed CBP entry data for the POR, and found no evidence that there were entries of subject merchandise exported by Baosteel. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review.Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels, high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and, iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”)/American Iron & Steel Institute (“AISI”) grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. Preliminary Rescission of Review Because there is no information on the record which indicates that Baosteel made sales to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, and because Baosteel is the only company subject to this administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2006, to October 31, 2007. If the rescission is confirmed in our final results, the cash deposit rate for Baosteel will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's final results not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than five days following submission of the comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . This notice is in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 7, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-7892 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-847, A-570-934) 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith (India) or Maisha Cryor (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 and 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1766 or

(202)482-5831, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On March 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions concerning imports of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid

(HEDP)from the Republic of India (India) (India petition) and the People's Republic of China

(PRC)(PRC petition) filed in proper form by Compass Chemical International LLC (petitioner). *See* the Petitions on HEDP from India and the PRC submitted on March 19, 2008. On March 24 and 25, and April 1, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's requests, the petitioner filed additional information on March 27, April 1 and 3, 2008 (two distinct submissions on general material and one distinct submission on PRC-only material). On March 28, 2008, Rhodia Inc., a producer of non-HEDP phosphonates and an importer of HEDP, submitted information indicating that the petitioner is the only U.S. producer of HEDP. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of HEDP from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations that the petitioner is requesting that the Department initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below). Period of Investigations The period of investigation

(POI)for India is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. The POI for the PRC is July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes all grades of aqueous, acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid 1 , also referred to as hydroxethlylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4. The merchandise subject to these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2931.00.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. 1 C 2 H 8 O 7 P 2 or C(CH 3 )(OH)(PO 3 H 2 ) 2 Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by April 28, 2008, which is 20 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of HEDP to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as 1) general product characteristics and 2) the product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe HEDP, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address by April 28, 2008. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by May 5, 2008. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:

(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

(i)poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or

(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” ( *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HEDP constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: HEDP from India* , Industry Support at Attachment II ( *India Initiation Checklist* ), and *Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: HEDP from the People's Republic of China (PRC)* , Industry Support at Attachment II ( *PRC Initiation Checklist* ) on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building. Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. To establish industry support, the petitioner demonstrated that it was the sole producer of the domestic like product in 2007. Therefore, the petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See India Initiation Checklist* and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. *See India Initiation Checklist* and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales, a decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See India Initiation Checklist* and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations of imports of HEDP from India and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, constructed value

(CV)(for India), and the factors of production (for the PRC) are also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. *See India Initiation Checklist* and *PRC Initiation Checklist* . Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. India Export Price

(EP)The petitioner calculated one EP based on a price quote for Indian-produced HEDP during the POI obtained from one of its U.S. customers. The petitioner made adjustments to the starting price for U.S. inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance charges. The petitioner calculated U.S. inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance charges based on price quotes obtained from a freight service provider. *See India Initiation Checklist* for further discussion. NV Based on CV With respect to NV, the petitioner states that neither home-market prices nor third-country prices of Indian-produced HEDP were reasonably available. According to the petitioner, it was unsuccessful in obtaining such pricing information, despite its best efforts. *See* India petition at pages 17-18. Therefore, the petitioner based NV on CV. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacture (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; packing expenses; and profit. In calculating COM (exclusive of factory overhead) and packing, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the inputs used to manufacture and pack HEDP in India on its own production experience during the POI. The petitioner then multiplied the usage quantities by the value of the inputs used to manufacture and pack HEDP in India based on publicly available data. In calculating factory overhead expenses, SG&A expenses and profit, the petitioner used the financial statements of Excel Industries Limited (Excel), an Indian manufacturer of HEDP. The petitioner used a calculation methodology for purposes of deriving CV in the India petition that is consistent with the calculation methodology used in the PRC petition. We made minor modifications to the petitioner's CV calculation to adjust the values of certain inputs included in COM (( *i.e.* , water, hydrochloric acid and phosphorus trichloride), consistent with Department practice. *See* the India petition at pages 12-18, *India Initiation Checklist* , and “NV” section below for further discussion. PRC EP The petitioner calculated one EP based on a sale for PRC-produced HEDP during the POI. The petitioner made adjustments to the starting price for ocean freight and marine insurance charges. The petitioner calculated ocean freight and marine insurance charges based on an actual price paid for these expenses. The petitioner also made a deduction to the starting price for commission expenses. The petitioner calculated commission expenses based on its own industry knowledge and experience. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* and “Fair Value Comparisons” section below for further discussion. NV The petitioner notes that the PRC is a non-market economy country

(NME)and that no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. *See* PRC petition, at page 12. The Department has previously examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. *See* Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006 (available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download /prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf). In addition, in recent investigations, the Department has continued to determine that the PRC is an NME country. *See Final 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* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. The petitioner argues that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at a comparable level of economic development and it is a significant producer of HEDP. *See* PRC Petition at page 12. The petitioner asserts that other potential surrogate countries are not known manufacturers of HEDP. *See* petition at page 12; *PRC Initiation Checklist* . Based on the information provided by the petitioner, the Department believes that the use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. The petitioner calculated NV and a dumping margin for the U.S. price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. The petitioner calculated NV based on its own consumption rates for producing HEDP in 2007. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* and *India Initiation Checklist* . The petitioner states that its production experience is representative of the production process used in the PRC and India because all of the material inputs and processing are unlikely to be materially different for a Chinese or Indian producer of HEDP. *See* petitions at Exhibit AD-1, Affidavit 3. The petitioner valued the factors of production based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, including India statistics from the Export Import Data Bank, Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency, the Gas Authority of India, and the Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* and *India Initiation Checklist* . Where the petitioner was unable to find input prices contemporaneous with the POI, the petitioner adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price index for India, as published by the Office of the Economic Advisor to India. *See* petitions at page 16 and Exhibit AD-11. In addition, the petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, as reported on the Department's website. *See* petitions at page 12. The petitioner did not calculate a labor cost for the PRC because it states that the cost is “negligible.” *Id* . at page 13. 2 For purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the surrogate values used by the petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation. However, the Department has made minor modifications, as appropriate, to the surrogate values as calculated by the petitioner ( *i.e.* , water, hydrochloric acid and phosphorus trichloride). *See PRC Initiation Checklist* . 2 The petitioner did calculate a labor cost for India based on rates obtained from the Department's website. The petitioner based factory overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit, on data from Excel for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007. *See* petitions at pages 15-16 and Exhibit AD-10. For purposes of initiation, the Department finds the petitioner's use of Excel's financial ratios appropriate. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of HEDP from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of EP and CV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margin for HEDP from India is 42.74 percent. *See India Initiation Checklist* at Attachment VIII. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margin for HEDP from the PRC is 72.42 percent. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment V. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petitions on HEDP from India and the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of HEDP from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection for India For the India investigation, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order

(APO)to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice, and make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo* . Respondent Selection for the PRC In the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from all known exporters and producers identified in the petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no later than April 29, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration website, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in the PRC petition at page 9 and Exhibit AD-3. Separate Rates In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate-rate application will be due by June 9, 2008. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin 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 subject merchandise 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* Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the petitions have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of India and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 5, 2008, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HEDP from India and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to either of the investigations will result in that investigation being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 8, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate

(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or

(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No. e. Fax No. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Sales Total Sales Please provide the following information for your company. If you believe that you should be treated as a single entity along with other named exporters, please provide the information requested below both in the aggregate for all named entities in your group and separately for each named entity. Please label each chart accordingly.

(1)Production Market: Total Quantity: ( In MT) Your total production of all merchandise meeting the description of HEDP identified in the “Scope of Investigations” section of this notice, produced during the period of investigation (“POI”) (regardless of the ultimate market destination). (2)U.S. Sales Merchandise Total Quantity: (In MT) Total Value ($U.S. 1 ) Merchandise under investigation your company produced and shipped/exported to the United States during the POI. Merchandise under investigation exported/shipped to the United States by your company during the POI which was sourced from an unaffiliated supplier or suppliers ( *i.e.* , not produced by your company). Merchandise under investigation produced by your company but exported/shipped through another PRC company to the United States during the POI. 1 Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms, such as “free on board” at port of export. Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please provide any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please **do not** include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please **do not** include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured Sales: • Further manufacture or assembly (including re-packing) sales (“further manufactured sales”) refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before being sold to the first unaffiliated customer. • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E8-7894 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeal by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C. AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of closure—administrative appeal decision record. SUMMARY: This announcement provides notice that the decision record has been closed for an administrative appeal filed with the Department of Commerce by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C. (collectively, AES). DATES: The decision record for AES' administrative appeal was closed on April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials from the appeal record are available at the Internet site *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm* and at the Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Odin Smith, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation, Department of Commerce, via e-mail at *osmith@doc.gov,* or at

(202)482-4144. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2007, AES filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and the Department of Commerce's implementing regulations, 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. The appeal was taken from an objection by the Maryland Department of the Environment (State) to AES' consistency certification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas

(LNG)terminal and associated 88-mile natural gas pipeline. The certification indicates that the project is consistent with Maryland's coastal management program. The project would affect the natural resources or land and water uses of Maryland's coastal zone. AES requested the Secretary to override the State's consistency objection on grounds the proposed project allegedly is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA, and necessary in the interest of national security. Decisions for CZMA administrative appeals are based on information contained in a decision record. Under the CZMA, the decision record must close no later than 220 days after notice of the appeal was first published in the **Federal Register** . 16 U.S.C. 1465. Consistent with this deadline, the AES appeal decision record was closed on April 14, 2008. No further information, briefs or comments will be considered in deciding this appeal. The CZMA requires that a notice be published in the **Federal Register** indicating the date on which the decision record has been closed. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b)(2). A final decision of the AES appeal must be issued no later than 60 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(c)(1). The deadline may be extended by publishing (within the 60-day period) a subsequent notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within that time frame. 16 U.S.C. 1465(c)(1). In this event, a final decision must be issued no later than 15 days after the date of publication of the subsequent notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(c)(2). Additional information about the AES appeal and the CZMA appeals process is available from the Department of Commerce CZMA appeals Web site *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Assistance.) Dated: April 9, 2008. Joel La Bissonniere, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. [FR Doc. E8-7904 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG98 International Whaling Commission; 60th Annual Meeting; Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the date, time, and location of the public meeting being held prior to the 60th annual International Whaling Commission

(IWC)meeting. DATES: The public meeting will be held May 7, 2008, at 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the NOAA Science Center Room, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty, 301-713-9090, Extension 183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of discharging the domestic obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. Commissioner has responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. He is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies. Once the draft agenda for the annual IWC meeting is completed, it will be posted on the IWC Secretariat's website at *http://www.iwcoffice.org* . Each year NOAA holds a meeting prior to the annual IWC meeting to discuss the tentative U.S. positions for the upcoming IWC meeting. Because the meeting discusses U.S. positions, the substance of the meeting must be kept confidential. Any U.S. citizen with an identifiable interest in U.S. whale conservation policy may participate, but NOAA reserves the authority to inquire about the interests of any person who appears at a meeting and to determine the appropriateness of that person's participation. Persons who represent foreign interests may not attend. These stringent measures are necessary to protect the confidentiality of U.S. negotiating positions and are a necessary basis for the relatively open process of preparing for IWC meetings. The meeting will be held at 1 p.m. at the NOAA Science Center Room, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Photo identification is required to enter the building. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cheri McCarty, 301-713-9090 by April 25, 2008. Dated: April 8, 2008. Rebecca J. Lent, Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7901 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XH18 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of its Ecosystem Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)and Ad Hoc Marine Reserve Scientific and Statistical Committee (ADMRSSC) in Tampa, FL on May 6 & 7, 2008. DATES: The Ecosystem SSC and Ad Hoc Marine Reserve SSC meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 and conclude by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Quorum Hotel, 700 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Ecosystem SSC and Ad Hoc Marine Reserves SSC will hold an ecosystem modeling workshop to continue work on development and evaluation of ecosystem models as fishery management tools in the Gulf of Mexico. This will be the third such workshop held by the Ecosystem SSC. One focus of this upcoming workshop will be to examine the utility of ecosystem modeling to evaluate marine protected area

(MPA)alternatives. The charge of the Ad Hoc Marine Reserves SSC includes making recommendations based on scientifically developed criteria for establishing reserves and testing their effectiveness as to whether they were working. Therefore, the Ad Hoc Marine Reserves SSC's purpose in this workshop is to provide their input as to the efficacy of this approach to evaluate reserves. The objectives of this workshop are to: 1. Continue the process of developing and evaluating the Gulf of Mexico Ecosim with Ecopath model as well as other models that may provide alternative or supplemental type of analyses. 2. Examine the utility of ecosystem models as a tool to evaluate potential MPA alternatives. 3. Begin the development of a framework for incorporating ecosystem evaluations into the management decision-making process. Copies of the agendas and other related materials can be obtained by calling

(813)348-1630. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the SSC and ADMRSSC for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the SSC will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: April 8, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7789 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH08 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Mission Activities AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications for letters of authorization; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received requests from the U.S. Navy

(Navy)for authorizations for the take of marine mammals incidental to Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) mission activities for the period beginning July 10, 2009 and ending July 9, 2014. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's requests for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's applications and requests. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.0648-XH08@noaa.gov* . NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. Copies of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES ), telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . A draft *Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement - NSWC PCD Mission Activities* (EIS/OEIS) prepared by the Navy can be viewed at: * http://nswcpc.navsea.navy.mil/Environment-Documents.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext. 137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or

(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]. Summary of Request On April 3, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting an authorization for the take of 15 species/stocks of cetacean incidental to the proposed mission activities in the NSWC PCD study area over the course of 5 years. These mission activities are classified as military readiness activities. The purpose of the proposed mission activities is to enhance NSWC PCD's capability and capacity to meet littoral and expeditionary warfare requirements by providing Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) and in service engineering for expeditionary maneuver warfare, operations in extreme environments, mine warfare, maritime operations, and coastal operations. The Navy states that these training activities may cause various impacts to marine mammal species in the NSWC PCD study area. The Navy requests an authorization to take individuals of these cetacean species by Level B Harassment. Further, the Navy requests an authorization to take 1 individual each of bottlenose, Atlantic spotted, and pantropical spotted dolphins per year by injury, as a result of the proposed mission activities. Please refer to Tables 6-3, 6-4, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9 of the LOA application for detailed information of the potential exposures from sonar exercises, detonations, and line charges (per year) for marine mammals in the NSWC PCD study area. Specified Activities In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests an authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to conducting mission activities within the NSWC PCD study area, which includes St. Andrew Bay

(SAB)and military warning areas (areas within the Gulf of Mexico

(GOM)subject to military operations) W-151 (includes Panama City Operating Area), W-155 (includes Pensacola Operating Area), and W-470. NSWC PCD provides RDT&E and in-service support for expeditionary maneuver warfare, operations in extreme environments, mine warfare, maritime (ocean-related) operations, and coastal operations. A variety of naval assets, including ships, aircraft, and underwater systems support the mission activities for eight primary test operations that occur within or over the water environment up to the high water mark. These operations include air, surface, and subsurface operations, sonar, electromagnetic energy, laser, ordnance, and projectile firing. Among the aforementioned operations, those activities that have been identified in the past to have the potential to affect marine mammals include surface, sonar, ordnance, and projectile firing operations. The following paragraphs provide some descriptions of these activities. For detailed description of these proposed activities, please refer to the LOA application and the NSWC PCD EIS/OEIS. Surface Operations A significant portion of NSWC PCD RDT&E relies on surface operations to successfully complete missions. Four subcategories make up the surface operations category. They include support activities, tows, deployment and recovery of equipment and systems development. The first subcategory is support activities, which are required by nearly all of the testing missions within the NSWC PCD study area. The size of these vessels varies in accordance with the test requirements and vessel availability. Often multiple surface crafts are required to support a single test event. Acting as a support platform for testing, these vessels are utilized to carry test equipment and personnel to and from the test sites and are also used to secure and monitor the designated test area. Normally, these vessels remain on site and return to port following the completion of the test; occasionally, however, they remain on-station throughout the duration of the test cycle for guarding sensitive equipment in the water. Testing associated with these operational capabilities may include a single test event or a series of test events spread out over consecutive days or as one long test operation that requires multiple days to complete. The remaining subcategories of additional support include tows, deployment and recovery of equipment, and systems development. Tows are also conducted from ships at the NSWC PCD to test system functionality. Tow tests of this nature involve either transporting the system to the designated test area where it is deployed and towed over a pre-positioned inert minefield or towing the system from NSWC PCD to the designated test area. Surface vessels are also utilized as a tow platform for systems that are designed to be deployed by helicopters. Surface vessels that are used in this manner normally return to port the same day. However, this is test dependent, and under certain circumstance (e.g., endurance testing), the vessel may be required to remain on site for an extended period of time. Finally, RDT&E activities also encompass testing of new, alternative, or upgraded hydrodynamics, and propulsion, navigational, and communication software and hardware systems. Sonar Operations NSWC PCD sonar operations involve the testing of various sonar systems in the ocean and laboratory environment as a means of demonstrating the systems' software capability to detect, locate, and characterize mine-like objects under various environmental conditions. The data collected are used to validate the sonar systems' effectiveness and capability to meet the mission. The various sonar systems proposed to be tested within the NSWC PCD Study Area range in frequencies from 1 kilohertz

(kHz)to 5 megahertz

(MHz)(5,000 kHz). The source levels associated with some of the NSWC PCD sonar systems range from between 200 dB re 1 microPa-m to 250 dB re 1 microPa-m. The sonar systems tested are typically part of a towed array or hull mounted to a vessel. Additionally, subsystems associated with an underwater unmanned vehicle

(UUV)or surf zone crawler operation are included. Operating parameters of the sonar systems used at NSWC PCD can be found in *Appendix A* of the LOA application. Table 1-1 of the LOA application provides an overall summary of the total tempos associated with sonar operations for the proposed mission activities. The table includes number of hours of operation for mid-frequency and high-frequency sonar testing activities for territorial and non-territorial waters, respectively. Ordnance Operations Ordnance operations include live testing of ordnance of various net explosive weights and line charges.

(1)Ordnance Live testing would only be conducted after a system has successfully completed inert testing and an adequate amount of data has been collected to support the decision for live testing. Testing with live targets or ordnance would be closely monitored and uses the minimum number of live munitions necessary to meet the testing requirement. Depending on the test scenario, live testing may occur from the surf zone out to the outer perimeter of the NSWC PCD study area. The Navy requires the capability to conduct ordnance operations in shallow water to clear surf zone areas for sea-based expeditionary operations. The size and weight of the explosives used varies from 0.91 to 272 kg (2 to 600 lb) trinitrotoluene

(TNT)net explosive weight

(NEW)depending on the test requirements. Detonation of ordnance with a NEW less than 34.5 kg (76 lb) would be conducted in territorial waters and detonations of ordnance with a NEW greater than 34.5 kg (76 lb) would be conducted in non-territorial waters.

(2)Line Charges Line charges consist of a 107 m (350 ft) detonation cord with explosives lined from one end to the other end in 2 kg (5 lb) increments and total 794 kg (1,750 lb) of NEW. The charge is considered one explosive source that has multiple increments that detonate at one time. The Navy proposes to conduct up to three line charge events in the surf zone. Line charge testing would only be conducted in the surf zone along the portion of Santa Rosa Island that is part of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB). The Navy must develop a capability to safely clear surf zone areas for sea-based expeditionary operations. To that end, NSWC PCD occasionally performs testing on various surf zone clearing systems that use line charges to neutralize mine threats. These tests would be typically conducted from a surface vessel (e.g., Landing Craft Air Cushion) and would be deployed using either a single or dual rocket launch scenario. This would be a systems development test and only assesses the in-water components of testing. Table 1-1 of the LOA application provides an overview of ordnance testing at NSWC PCD. Projectile Firing Operations Current projectile firing includes 50 rounds of 30-mm ammunition each year within the NSWC PCD study area. The capability of utilizing gunfire during test operations was identified as a future requirement. Rounds (individual shots) identified include 5 inch, 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 76 mm, and various small arms ammunition (i.e., standard target ammo). Projectiles associated with these rounds are mainly armor-piercing projectiles. The 5-in round is a high explosive projectile containing approximately 3.63 kg (8 lbs) of explosive material. All projectile firing would occur over non-territorial waters. Proposed Monitoring and Mitigation Measures The NSWC PCD proposed a list of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce any potential to marine mammals. The Navy would provide training to marine observers and would establish quickly and effectively communication within the command structure to facilitate implementation of protective measures if marine mammals are spotted during the operations. Marine observers would have at least one set of binoculars available for each person to aid in the detection of marine mammals. Marine observers would scan the water from the ship to the horizon and be responsible for all observations in their sector. Observers would be responsible for informing the Test Director of any marine mammal that is sighted. Test Directors would, as appropriate to the event, make use of marine species detection cues and information to limit interaction with marine species to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the safety of the ship. A summary of specific monitoring and mitigation measures is provided below: Mitigation Measures for Surface Operations For surface activities, visual surveys would be conducted for all test operations to reduce the potential for vessel collisions with a protected species. If necessary, the ship's course and speed would be adjusted. Other mitigation measures include maintaining alert vessel lookouts when traveling at high speeds to reduce the potential for collision to occur with a marine mammal. Mitigation Measures for Sonar Operations For sonar operations, in general, the Navy will operate sonar at the lowest practicable level, not to exceed source level of 235 dB re 1 microPa, except as required to meet RDT&E objectives. Prior to start up or restart of active sonar, operators will check that the safety zone radii around the sound system are clear of marine mammals. Helicopters will observe/survey the vicinity of an NSWC PCD RDT&E activity for 10 minutes before the first deployment of active (dipping) sonar in the water. During operations involving mid-frequency active

(MFA)sonar, personnel would use all available sensor and optical systems (such as night vision goggles to aid in the detection of marine mammals). Navy aircraft participating would conduct and maintain, when operationally feasible, required, and safe, surveillance for marine mammal species as long as it does not violate safety constraints or interfere with the accomplishment of primary operational duties. Marine mammal detections by aircraft will be immediately reported to the Test Director. This action will occur when it is reasonable to conclude that the course of the ship will likely approach marine mammals within the safety radii. When marine mammals are detected by any means (aircraft, shipboard lookout, or acoustically) within 914 m (1,000 yd) of the sonar system, the platform will limit active transmission levels to at least 6 decibels

(dB)below normal operating levels. Vessels will continue to limit maximum transmission levels by this 6-dB factor until the animal has been seen to leave the area, has not been detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel has transited more than 914 m (1,000 yd) beyond the location of the last detection. Should a marine mammal be detected within or closing to inside 457 m (500 yd) of the sonar dome, active sonar transmissions will be limited to at least 10 dB below the equipment's normal operating level. Platforms will continue to limit maximum ping levels by this 10-dB factor until the animal has been seen to leave the area, has not been detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel has transited more than 914 m (1,000 yd) beyond the location of the last detection. Should the marine mammal be detected within or closing to inside 183 m (200 yd) of the sonar dome, active sonar transmissions will cease. Sonar will not resume until the animal has been seen to leave the area, has not been detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel has transited more than 914 m (1,000 yd) beyond the location of the last detection. If the need for power-down should arise, Navy staff will follow the requirements as though they were operating at 235 dB, the normal operating level (i.e., the first power-down will be to 229 dB, regardless of the level above 235 dB the sonar was being operated). Mitigation Measures for Detonations and Projectiles No detonations over 34 kg (75 lb) of NEW would be conducted in territorial waters. However, this does not apply to the line charge detonation, which is a 107 m (350 ft) detonation cord with explosives lined from one end to the other end in 2 kg (5 lb) increments and total 794 kg (1,750 lb) of NEW. This charge is considered one explosive source that has multiple increments that detonate at one time. The number of live mine detonations would be minimized and the smallest amount of explosive material possible to achieve test objectives will be used. Visual surveys and aerial surveys will be conducted for all test operations that involve detonation events with large NEW. Any protected species sighted would be avoided. Line charge tests would not be conducted during the nighttime. Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division's request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's mission activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization. Dated: April 8, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7897 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG77 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Training Operations Conducted within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications for letters of authorization; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received requests from the U.S. Navy

(Navy)for authorizations for the take of marine mammals incidental to training operations conducted within the Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Range Complex and the Jacksonville

(JAX)Range Complex for the period beginning April 28, 2009 and ending April 27, 2014. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's requests for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's applications and requests. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.0648-XG77@noaa.gov* . NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. Copies of the Navy's applications may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES ), telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext. 137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or

(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]. Summary of Request On March 17, 2008, NMFS received applications from the Navy requesting authorization for the take of 13 species of cetacean incidental to the proposed training activities in VACAPES and 6 species in JAX Range Complexes, respectively, over the course of 5 years. These training activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these training activities may cause various impacts to marine mammal species in the proposed VACAPES and JAX Range Complex areas. The Navy requests authorizations to take individuals of these cetacean species by Level B Harassment. Further, the Navy requests authorization to take 1 individual Atlantic spotted, 25 common, 1 pantropical spotted, and 9 striped dolphins per year by injury, and 1 individual common dolphin per year by mortality, as a result of the proposed training activities at VACAPES Range Complex. Please refer to Table 30 of the VACAPES Range Complex LOA application for detailed information of the potential exposures from explosive ordnance (per year) for marine mammals in the VACAPES Range Complex. Furthermore, the Navy requests authorization to take 2 individual Atlantic spotted dolphins per year by injury as a result of the proposed training activities at JAX Range Complex. Please refer to Table 27 of the JAX Range Complex LOA application for detailed information of the potential exposures from explosive ordnance (per year) for marine mammals in the JAX Range Complex. Specified Activities In the applications submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorizations for take of marine mammals incidental to conducting training operations within the VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes. These training activities consist of surface warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, strike warfare, and vessel movement. The locations of these activities are described in Figures 1 of these applications. A description of each of these training activities within each of the range complexes is provided below: Surface Warfare Surface Warfare

(SUW)supports defense of a geographical area (e.g., a zone or barrier) in cooperation with surface, subsurface, and air forces. SUW operations detect, localize, and track surface targets, primarily ships. Detected ships are monitored visually and with radar. Operations include identifying surface contacts, engaging with weapons, disengaging, evasion and avoiding attack, including implementation of radio silence and deceptive measures. For the proposed VACAPES Range Complex training operations, SUW involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile Exercises and surface-to-surface Bombing Exercises that occur at sea. For the proposed JAX Range Complexes training operations, SUW involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile Exercises that occur at sea.

(1)Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (MISSILEX (A-S)): This exercise would involve fixed winged aircraft crews and helicopter crews launch missiles at at-sea surface targets with the goal of destroying or disabling the target. MISSILEX (A-S) training in both VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes can occur during the day or at night in locations described in Figures 1 of the LOA applications.

(2)Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX) (A-S): This exercise would involve strike fighter aircraft (F/A-18s) deliver explosive bombs against at-sea surface targets with the goal of destroying the target. BOMBEX (A-S) training in the VACAPES Study Area occurs only during daylight hours in the locations described in Figure 1 of the LOA application. Mine Warfare/Mine Exercises Mine Warfare

(MIW)includes the strategic, operational, and tactical use of mines and mine countermine measures (MCM). MIW training events are also collectively referred to as Mine Exercises (MINEX). MIW training/MINEX utilizes shapes to simulate mines. These shapes are either concrete-filled shapes or metal shapes. No actual explosive mines are used during MIW training in the VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes study areas. MIW training or MINEX is divided into the following:

(1)Mine laying: Crews practice the laying of mine shapes in simulated enemy areas;

(2)Mine countermeasures: Crews practice “countering” simulated enemy mines to permit the maneuver of friendly vessels and troops. “Countering” refers to both the detection and identification of enemy mines, the marking and maneuver of vessels and troops around identified enemy mines and mine fields, and the disabling of enemy mines. A subset of mine countermeasures is mine neutralization. Mine neutralization refers to the disabling of enemy mines by causing them to self-detonate either by setting a small explosive charge in the vicinity of the enemy mine, or by using various types of equipment that emit a sound, pressure, or a magnetic field that causes the mine to trip and self-detonate. In all cases, actual explosive

(live)mines would not be used during training events. Rather, mine shapes are used to simulate real enemy mines. In the VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes study areas, MIW training/MINEX events include the use of explosive charges for two and one types of mine countermeasures and neutralization training, respectively. In the VACAPE Range Complex, this training would use the Airborne Mine Neutralization System

(AMNS)and underwater detonations of mine shapes by Explosive Ordnance Disposal

(EOD)divers. In the JAX Range Complex, this training would only use underwater detonations of mine shapes by EOD divers. In both range complexes, MIW training/MINEX would occur only during daylight hours in the locations described in Figures 1 of the LOA applications. Amphibious Warfare Amphibious Warfare

(AMW)involves the utilization of naval firepower and logistics in combination with U.S. Marine Corps landing forces to project military power ashore. AMW encompasses a broad spectrum of operations involving maneuver from the sea to objectives ashore, ranging from shore assaults, boat raids, ship-to-shore maneuver, shore bombardment and other naval fire support, and air strike and close air support training. In both range complexes, AMW that involve the use of explosive ordnance is limited to Firing Exercises (FIREX). During an FIREX, surface ships use their main battery guns to fire from sea at land targets in support of military forces ashore. On the east coast, the land ranges where FIREX training can take place are limited. Therefore, land masses are simulated during east coast FIREX training using the Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and Simulation System (IMPASS) system, a system of buoys that simulate a land mass. FIREX training using IMPASS in the VACAPES and JAX Range Complex study areas occurs only during daylight hours in the locations described in Figures 1 of the LOA applications. Strike Warfare Strike Warfare

(STW)operations are the applications of offensive military power at any chosen time and place to help carry out national goals. The systems required to conduct STW include: weapons, launch platforms, and command and control systems, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting systems, and pilots or crews to operate the systems. STW would only occur in the VACAPES Range Complex study area. STW involves the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile Exercises (MISSILEX (A-S)). Strike fighter and electronic attack aircraft use sensors to detect radar signals from a simulated threat radar site and either simulate or actually launch an explosive or non-explosive high-speed anti-radiation missile

(HARM)with the goal of destroying or disabling the threat radar site. HARM training events are conducted in the daytime and at night in locations described Figure 1 of the VACAPE LOA application. Vessel Movement Vessel movements are associated with most activities under the training operations in both VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes. Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in the VACAPES and JAX Range Complex study areas varies based on training schedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Ship sizes range from 362 ft (110 m) for a SSN to 1,092 ft (333 m) for a CVN and speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots. Operations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. These operations are widely dispersed throughout the operation areas, which is a vast area encompassing 27,661 nm 2 (an area approximately the size of Indiana) for the VACAPES Range Complex and 50,090 nm 2 for the JAX Range Complex. The Navy logs about 1,400 total vessel days within the VACAPES Range Complex and about 1,000 total vessel days within the JAX Range Complex during a typical year. Consequently, the density of ships within the Study Area at any given time is extremely low (i.e., less than 0.0004 ships/nm 2 and 0.00005 ship/nm 2 , for VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes, respectively). Table 1 in both applications provide descriptions of the locations of the VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes. Tables 2 through 5 in both applications provide summaries of the proposed training operations involving explosions and the types and frequencies of explosives that would be used. Proposed Monitoring and Mitigation Measures The Navy is developing an Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program

(ICMP)for marine species to assess the effects of training activities on marine species and investigate population trends in marine species distribution and abundance in various range complexes and geographic locations where Navy training occurs. The primary tools available for monitoring include visual observations, acoustic monitoring, photo identification and tagging, and oceanographic and environmental data collection. A list of proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures are described in the applications for the proposed training operations. These mitigation measures include personnel training for watchstanders and lookouts in marine mammal monitoring, operating procedures for collision avoidance, specific measures applicable to the mid-Atlantic during North Atlantic right whale migration, and a series of measures for specific at-sea training events including surface-to-surface gunnery, etc. A detailed description of the monitoring and mitigation measures are provided in the applications. Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's VACAPES and JAX Range Complexes request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's training activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorizations. Dated: April 8, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-7903 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH06 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 1.3 “Re-analyses of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features. Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3 “Re-analyses of historical climate data for key atmospheric features. Implications for attribution of causes of observed change.” This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 1.3 is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-3/default.php* Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided at the CCSP link. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: *1.3-reanalysis@climatescience.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: April 8, 2008. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E8-7896 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to

(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(CAR)For the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) (as reauthorized by Pub. L. 109-270). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't., SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 55. *Burden Hours:* 11,825. *Abstract:* The purpose of this information collection package—the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR)—is to gather narrative, financial, and performance data as required by the newly reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) (20 U.S. C. 2301 *et seq.* as amended by Pub. L. 109-270). OVAE staff will determine each State's compliance with basic provisions of Perkins IV and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 80.40 [Annual Performance Report] and Part 80.41 [Financial Status Report]). OVAE staff will review performance data to determine whether, and to what extent, each State has met its State adjusted levels of performance for the core indicators described in section 113(b)(4) of Perkins IV. Perkins IV requires the Secretary to provide the appropriate committees of Congress copies of annual reports received by the Department from each eligible agency that receives funds under the Act. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3576. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments“ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-7835 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to

(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, *e.g.* , “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: April 8, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Fiscal Operations Report for 2007-2008 and Application to Participate for 2009-2010 (FISAP) and Reallocation Form E40-4P. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 5,798. *Burden Hours:* 27,935. *Abstract:* This application data will be used to compute the amount of funds needed by each school for the 2009-2010 award year. The Fiscal Operations Report data will be used to assess program effectiveness, account for funds expended during the 2007-2008 award year, and as part of the school funding process. The Reallocation form is part of the FISAP on the Web. Schools will use it in the summer to return unexpended funds for 2007-2008 and request supplemental FWS funds for 2008-2009. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3581. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-7836 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0058; FRL-8553-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1679.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0289 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0058, to

(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-4113; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *williams.learia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 *FR* 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0058, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NESHAP for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1679.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0289. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y), were proposed on May 13, 1994, and promulgated on September 19, 1995. These regulations apply maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)standards to existing facilities and new facilities that load marine tank vessels with petroleum or gasoline and have aggregate actual HAP emissions of 10 tons or more of HAP or 25 tons or more of all HAP combined. These regulations also apply reasonably available control technology

(RACT)standards to such facilities with an annual throughput of 10 million or more barrels of gasoline or 200 million or more barrels of crude oil. Owners or operators of marine tank vessel loading facilities subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Marine tank vessel loading operations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 804. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion, semiannually and annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 9,872. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $629,850. There are no annualized capital/startup and annual O&M costs associated with this ICR. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: April 3, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7870 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8553-8] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund

(202)566-1682, or e-mail at *westlund.rick@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request

(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses To Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR Number 2261.01; Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative

(SDSI)Program; was approved 03/11/2008; OMB Number 2070-0171; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1710.05; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Disclosure Requirements (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 745, subpart F; was approved 03/21/2008; OMB Number 2070-0151; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 0983.10; Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; in 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa; was approved 03/21/2008; OMB Number 2060-0067; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2227.02; NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ; was approved 03/24/2008; OMB Number 2060-0610; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2274.02; NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources (Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 63, subparts RRRRRR, SSSSSS, and TTTTTT; was approved 03/24/2008; OMB Number 2060-0606; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1715.09; TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 Training and Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 745, subparts L and Q; was approved 03/26/2008; OMB Number 2070-0155; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2078.02; Energy Star Product Labeling (Renewal); was approved 03/26/2008; OMB Number 2060-0528; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1365.08; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Rule (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 763, subpart E, Appendix C; was approved 03/27/2008; OMB Number 2070-0091; expires 03/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1630.09; Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plans (Renewal); in 40 CFR 112.20 and 112.21; was approved 03/31/2008; OMB Number 2050-0135; expires 03/31/2011. Short Term Extension of Expiration Date EPA ICR Number 1860.03; Assessment of Compliance Assistance Projects; a short term extension of the expiration date was granted by OMB on 03/31/2008; OMB Number 2020-0015; expires 09/30/2008. Disapproval EPA ICR Number 1823.03; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Perfluorocompound

(PFC)Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semi-conductor Industry; a short term extension request by EPA of the expiration date was disapproved by OMB on 04/02/2008; OMB Number 2060-0382; expired 03/31/2008. Dated: April 7, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7871 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0057; FRL-8553-9] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1807.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0370 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(202)564-4113; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *williams.learia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 *FR* 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0057, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1807.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0370. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production were promulgated on June 23, 1999 (64 *FR* 33550). Owners or operators of pesticide active ingredient

(PAI)production facilities to which this regulation applies must choose one of the compliance options that are described in the rule or install and monitor a specific control system that reduces hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions to the compliance level. The respondents are subject to sections of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 relating to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). These requirements include those associated with the applicability determination; the notification that the facility is subject to the rule; and the notification of testing (control device performance test and continuous monitoring system [CMS] performance evaluation); the results of performance testing and CMS performance evaluations; startup, shutdown, and malfunction report; and semiannual or quarterly summary reports and/or excess emissions and CMS performance reports. In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many respondents are required to submit pre-compliance plan and leak detection and repair

(LDAR)reports; and plants that wish to implement emissions averaging provisions must submit an emission averaging plan. Respondents electing to comply with the emission limit or emission reduction requirements for process vents, storage tanks, or wastewater must record the values of equipment operating parameters as specified in 40 CFR 63.1367 of the rule. If the owner or operator identifies any deviation resulting from any known cause for which no federally approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation or standard applies, the compliance report will also include all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as the following: The magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each deviation, including action taken to minimize each deviation and action taken to prevent recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any element of the monitoring protocol. Owners or operators of PAI production facilities subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private. Since many of the facilities potentially affected by the NESHAP standards are currently subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), the standards include an exemption from the NSPS for those sources. That exemption eliminates a duplication of information collection requirements. In the Administrator's judgment, pollutants emitted from PAI production facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Pesticide active ingredient production. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 88. *Frequency of Response:* Initially, quarterly and semiannually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 24,168. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $1,895,079, which includes $236,430 annualized capital costs, or $116,600 in O&M costs, and $1,542, 049. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a slight increase of four labor hours which was caused by a calculation error in the previous ICR. This did not affect or changed the burden or cost in any way as compared to the previous ICR. The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Since the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: April 3, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7872 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0035; FRL-8554-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1805.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0377 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Lazarus, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance, (2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-6369; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 *FR* 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0035, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(HAP)emissions from chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) were promulgated for this source category. The control of emissions of HAP from chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. This NESHAP covering emissions from chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills relies on the capture and/or reduction of HAP emissions by recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks (SDTs), lime kilns, or soda or sulfite combustion units. Pulp mill owners or operators (respondents) are required to submit initial notifications, maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Respondents are required to monitor and keep records of specific operating parameters for each control device and to perform and document periodic inspections of the closed vent and wastewater conveyance systems. As much as possible, in order to reduce the burden, the compliance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are designed to cover parameters that are already being monitored as part of the manufacturing process. All respondents must submit semiannual summary reports of monitored parameters, and they must submit an additional monitoring report during each quarter in which monitored parameters were outside the ranges established in the standard or during initial performance tests. A source identified to be out of compliance with the NESHAP will be required to submit quarterly reports until the Administrator is satisfied that the source has corrected its compliance problem. In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The quarterly reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The standard also requires semiannual reporting of deviations from monitored opacity, as this is a good indicator of the source's compliance status. Responses to this information collection are mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information

(CBI)(see 40 CFR part 2; 41 *FR* 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 *FR* 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 *FR* 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 *FR* 17674, March 23, 1979). *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 475 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Owners or operators of pulp mills with chemical recovery combustion sources: *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 130. *Frequency of Response:* Initially, on occasion, quarterly, semiannually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 150,043 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $8,667,298, which includes capital/startup costs of $123,000, O&M costs of $864,000, and $7,680,298 in labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:

(1)The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and

(2)the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: April 7, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7873 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0034; FRL-8554-2] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1657.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0387 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Lazarus, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance, (2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-6369; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 *FR* 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0034, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(HAP)emissions from pulp mills cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) were promulgated for this source category. This NESHAP covering emissions from the pulping process relies on the capture and destruction of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP)by either burning them in a boiler or kiln or by introducing them into the wastewater treatment system. The HAPs captured from bleaching systems are controlled with a chlorine gas scrubber. Pulp mill owners or operators (respondents) are required to submit initial notifications, maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Respondents are required to monitor and keep records of specific operating parameters for each control device and to perform and document periodic inspections of the closed vent and wastewater conveyance systems. As much as possible, in order to reduce the burden, the compliance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are designed to cover parameters that are already being monitored as part of the manufacturing process. All respondents must submit semiannual summary reports of monitored parameters, and they must submit an additional monitoring report during each quarter in which monitored parameters were outside the ranges established in the standard or during initial performance tests. A source identified to be out of compliance with the NESHAP will be required to submit quarterly reports until the Administrator is satisfied that the source has corrected its compliance problem. In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The quarterly reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The standard also requires semiannual reporting of deviations from monitored opacity, as this is a good indicator of the source's compliance status. Responses to this information collection are mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart S). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information

(CBI)(see 40 CFR part 2; 41 *FR* 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 *FR* 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 *FR* 17674, March 23, 1979). *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 104 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Owners or operators of pulp mills. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 137. *Frequency of Response:* Initial, On occasion, Quarterly, Semiannually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 42,444 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $3,085,125, including $2,708,129 in labor costs and $377,000 in annual O&M testing costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:

(1)The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and

(2)the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: April 3, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7874 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0259; FRL-8554-4] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-8) and Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-16); EPA ICR No. 0160.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0078 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 September 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 June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0259, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *docket.oeca@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(202)566-1511. • *Mail:* Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC), Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC), Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center'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-OECA-2008-0259. 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 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: Robin Nogle, Office of Compliance, Agriculture Division (2225A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-4154; fax number:

(202)564-0085; e-mail: *nogle.robin@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-OECA-2008-0259, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC), in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is 202-566-1752. 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 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 in this document. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to:

(1)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;

(2)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;

(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. 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 those which produce pesticides and pesticide devices. *Title:* Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-8) and Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-16). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 0160.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0078. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 7(a) requires that any person who produces pesticides or pesiticide devices subject to the Act must register with the Administrator of EPA the establishment in which the pesticide or the device is produced. This section further requires that application for registration of any establishment shall include the name and address of the establishment and of the producer who operates such an establishment. EPA Form 3540-8, Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to collect the establishment registration information required by this section. FIFRA section 7(c) requires that any producer operating an establishment registered under section 7 report to the Administrator within 30 days after it is registered, and annually thereafter by March 1st for certain pesticide/device production and sales/distribution information. The producers must report which types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients, or devices are currently being produced, were produced during the past year, sold or distributed in the past year. The supporting regulations at 40 CFR part 167 provide the requirements and time schedules for submitting production information. EPA Form 3540-16, Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to collect the pesticide production information required by section 7(c) of FIFRA. Establishment registration information, collected on EPA Form 3540-8, is a one-time requirement for all pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments. Pesticide and device production information, reported on EPA Form 3540-16, is required to be submitted within 30 days after the company is notified of their pesticide-producing or device-producing establishment number, and annually thereafter on or before March 1st. *Burden Statement:* The average annual burden to the industry over the next three years is estimated to be 2 person hours per response. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* 13,250. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 13,250. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 26,500. There are no capital/startup costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this ICR since all equipment associated with this ICR is present as part of ordinary business practices. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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: April 3, 2008. Richard Colbert, Director, Agriculture Division, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. [FR Doc. E8-7877 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0060; FRL-8554-3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Engine Test Cells/Stands (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2066.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0483 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(202)564-4113; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *williams.learia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 *FR* 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0060, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NESHAP for Engine Test Cells/Stands (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 2066.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0483. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), for Engine Test Cells/Stands were proposed on May 14, 2002 (67 *FR* 34547), and promulgated on May 27, 2003 (68 *FR* 28785). These standards apply to any existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources. An affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities associated with engine test cells/stands used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines. Respondents of affected sources are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless the regulation specifies otherwise. Owners and operators must submit an initial notification report upon the construction, or reconstruction of any engine test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines. The respondents are required to submit a semiannual compliance report. If there were no deviations from the emission limitation and the continuous emission monitoring system

(CEMS)was operating correctly, the semiannual report must contain a statement that no deviation occurred. If a deviation occurred from an emission limit, the report must contain detailed information of the nature of the deviation. Performance test reports are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance is to be achieved. The information generated by monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR are used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the standard continue to operate the control equipment and achieve continuous compliance with the regulation. Owners or operators of engine test cells/stands facilities subject to the rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 76 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Engine test cells/stands. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 18. *Frequency of Response:* Semiannually, annually, and initially. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 3,043. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $248,264. Including $5,400 in O&M costs, no annualized capital costs, and $242,864 in labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR; however, a rounding error was corrected in the Annual Cost. There are no changes due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: April 8, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-7878 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922; FRL-8553-6] Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Reports for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of draft reports for public review and comment. SUMMARY: On April 4, 2008, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public review and comment two draft documents. The first document is titled “Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO 2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: First Draft.” The title of the second document is “Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO 2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Draft Technical Support Document (TSD).” The purpose of these draft documents is to convey the approach taken to assess exposures to ambient NO 2 and to characterize associated health risks, as well as to present the results of those assessments. DATES: Comments on the above reports must be received on or before May 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922. • *Fax:* Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922. • *Mail:* Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, 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-OAR-2006-0922. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 202-566-1742; fax 202-566-9744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mailcode C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail: *Jenkins.scott@epa.gov;* telephone: 919-541-1167; fax: 919-541-0237. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Air quality criteria have been established for the nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and NAAQS have been established for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), an indicator for NO X . Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria for NO X and the NAAQS for NO 2 . As part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is preparing an assessment of exposures and health risks associated with ambient NO 2 . A draft plan describing the proposed approaches to assessing exposures and risks is described in the draft document, *Nitrogen Dioxide Health Assessment Plan: Scope and Methods for Exposure and Risk Assessment.* This document was released for public review and comment in September, 2007 and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on October 24 and 25, 2007. Comments received from that consultation have been considered in developing the draft risk and exposure assessment documents being released at this time. The draft documents convey the approach taken to assess exposures to ambient NO 2 and to characterize associated health risks, as well as to present the results of those assessments. These draft documents will be available online at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_rea.html.* The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review on the draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. A **Federal Register** notice will inform the public of the date and location of that meeting. Following the CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing a second draft risk and exposure assessment report. The release of the second draft report will be followed by another CASAC meeting and ultimately by a final risk and exposure assessment report. Dated: April 4, 2008. Mary E. Henigin, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-7882 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8553-5] Application of Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Methods to Watershed Management AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a final report titled, “Application of Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Methods to Watershed Management” (EPA/600/R-06/037F), which was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment

(NCEA)within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). DATES: This document will be available on or about April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The document will be available electronically through the NCEA Web site at * http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* A limited number of paper copies will be available from the EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone: 1-800-490-9198; facsimile: 301-604-3408; e-mail: *nscep@bps-lmit.com.* Please provide your name, your mailing address, the title and the EPA number of the requested publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Information Management Team, National Center for Environmental Assessment (8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 703-347-8561; fax: 703-347-8691; e-mail: *nceadc.comment@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ecological risk assessment

(ERA)is a process for analyzing environmental problems and is intended to increase the use of ecological science in decision making in order to evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. Applying ERA principles to watershed management makes scientific information more relevant to the needs of environmental managers. Watershed ERAs are complex because addressing impacts from multiple sources and stressors on multiple endpoints presents a scientific challenge and because multiple stakeholders have diverse interests. The needs of managers and stakeholders may change, and the need to take action may require using the best available information at the time, sometimes before an ERA is completed. Therefore, some flexibility of ERA methods is needed when performing watershed ERAs. It is also important that risk assessors and managers interact regularly and repeatedly. This report supplements the *Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment* (U.S. EPA, 1998a) by addressing issues unique to ecological assessments of watersheds. Using lessons learned from watershed ERAs, the report presents guidance and examples for scientists performing watershed ecological assessments. The report also can be useful to risk assessors, watershed associations, landscape ecologists, and others seeking to increase the use of environmental assessment data in decision making. Each activity and phase of the watershed ERA process is explained sequentially in this report. Guidance on how to involve stakeholders to generate environmental management goals and objectives is provided. The processes for selecting assessment endpoints, developing conceptual models, and selecting the exposure and effects pathways to be analyzed are described. Suggestions for predicting how multiple sources and stressors affect assessment endpoints are also provided; these include using multivariate analyses to compare land use with biotic measurements. In addition, the report suggests how to estimate, describe, and communicate risk and how to evaluate management alternatives. Dated: April 3, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-7774 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested April 7, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments June 13, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov,* Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To submit your comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*

(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review”,

(3)click the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box and

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, send an e-mail to Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.* : 3060-1021. *Title:* Section 25.139, NGSO FSS Coordination and Information Sharing Between MVDDS Licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz Band. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 6 respondents; 6 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 6 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 36 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting or third party disclosure requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. This rule section requires Non-geostationary Satellite Orbit

(NGSO)Fixed-Satellite Service

(FSS)licensees to maintain a subscriber database in a format that can be readily shared with Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees for the purpose of determining compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna space requirement relating to qualifying existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set forth in 47 CFR 101.129. The Commission uses the data obtained under 47 CFR 25.139 to ensure hat NGSO FSS licensees provide MVDDS licensees with the data needed to determine whether a proposed MVDDS transmitting site meets the minimum spacing requirement relative to certain NGSO FSS receivers. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7879 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested April 8, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before May 14, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at

(202)395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* or *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to the web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*

(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,”

(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at

(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0027. *Title:* Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station. *Form Number:* FCC Form 301. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents/Responses:* 4,278. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement; One time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2 to 4 hours. *Total Annual Burden:* 10,513 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $51,350,347. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Confidentiality:* No need for confidentiality required. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* Congress has mandated that after February 17, 2009, full-power television broadcast stations must transmit only in digital signals, and may no longer transmit analog signals. On December 22, 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the matter of the *Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television,* MB Docket No. 07-91, FCC 07-228, to establish the rules, policies and procedures necessary to complete the nation's transition to DTV. With the DTV transition deadline less than 14 months away, the Commission must ensure that broadcasters meet their statutory responsibilities and complete construction of, and begin operations on, the facility on their final, post-transition (digital) channel that will reach viewers in their authorized service areas by the statutory transition deadline, when they must cease broadcasting in analog. The Commission wants to ensure that no consumers are left behind in the DTV transition. Specifically, the Report and Order requires full-power commercial television stations to use revised FCC Form 301 to obtain the necessary Commission approvals ( *i.e.* , construction permits and licenses) in time to build their post-transition facility. • *Applications for post-transition facilities.* Full-power commercial television stations without a construction permit for their final, post-transition

(DTV)facility must file an application to construct or modify that facility using FCC Forms 301. • *Requests to transition early to post-transition channel.* Full-power commercial television stations may request authority to transition early to their post-transition channel using FCC Forms 301. • *Revisions to FCC Form 301.* FCC Form 301 was revised to accommodate the filing of post-transition applications. The FCC received approval under the “emergency processing provisions” of the PRA on January 7, 2008. The requirements for this collection have not changed since we received approval. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0029. *Title:* Application for TV Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 302 TV; Application for DTV Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 302-DTV; Application for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station, FCC Form 340; Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM Booster Station, FCC Form 349. *Form Number(s):* FCC Form 302-TV; FCC Form 302-DTV; FCC Form 340; *FCC Form 349.* *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents/Responses:* 4,325. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; One time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 to 4 hours. *Total Annual Burden:* 12,150 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $21,091,625. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Confidentiality:* No need for confidentiality required. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* Congress has mandated that after February 17, 2009, full-power television broadcast stations must transmit only in digital signals, and may no longer transmit analog signals. On December 22, 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the matter of the *Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television* , MB Docket No. 07-91, FCC 07-228, to establish the rules, policies and procedures necessary to complete the nation's transition to DTV. With the DTV transition deadline less than 14 months away, the Commission must ensure that broadcasters meet their statutory responsibilities and complete construction of, and begin operations on, the facility on their final, post-transition (digital) channel that will reach viewers in their authorized service areas by the statutory transition deadline, when they must cease broadcasting in analog. The Commission wants to ensure that no consumers are left behind in the DTV transition. Specifically, the Report and Order requires Noncommercial Educational (“NCE”) television stations to use revised FCC Form 340 to obtain the necessary Commission approvals (i.e., construction permits and licenses) in time to build their post-transition facility. • *Applications for post-transition facilities* . NCE television stations without a construction permit for their final, post-transition

(DTV)facility must file an application to construct or modify that facility using FCC Forms 340. • *Requests to transition early to post-transition channel* . NCE television stations may request authority to transition early to their post-transition channel using FCC Form 340. • *Revisions to FCC Form 340* . FCC Form 340 was revised to accommodate the filing of post-transition applications. In addition, the Report and Order requires that stations that have applied to construct or modify post-transition facilities must use the Form 302-DTV to obtain a new or modified station license to cover those post-transition facilities. The FCC received approval under the “emergency processing provisions” of the PRA on January 7, 2008. The requirements for this collection have not changed since we received approval. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7884 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 2008, Cancelled April 10, 2008. The Federal Communications Commission has cancelled the Open Meeting on the subjects previously scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 2008, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations,

(202)418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1128 Filed 4-10-08; 11:35 am]

Connectionstraces to 48

Traces to 48 documents

U.S. Code