Notices. Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance

92,524 words·~421 min read·/register/2008/04/14/08-1132

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

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0058] Information Collection; Federal Management Regulation; Standard Form 151, Deposit Bond, Annual Sale of Government Personal Property AGENCY: Federal Acquisition Service, GSA. ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding Standard Form 151, Deposit Bond, Annual Sale of Government Personal Property. The clearance currently expires on June 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. DATES: Submit comments on or before: June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Iris Wright-Simpson, Property Marketing Specialist, Sales Branch, by telephone at

(703)605-2912 or via email to *iris.wright-simpson@gsa.gov* . ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0058; Standard Form 151, Deposit Bond, Annual Sale of Government Personal Property. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Standard Form 151 is used by bidders participating in sales of Government personal property whenever the sales invitation permits an annual type of deposit bond in lieu of cash or other form of deposit. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents* : 250 *Responses per Respondent* : 1 *Total Responses* : 250 *Hours per Response* : .25 *Total Burden Hours* : 62.5 *Obtaining copies of proposals* : Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0058, Standard Form 151, Deposit Bond, Annual Sale of Government Personal Property, in all correspondence. Dated: March 20, 2008. Casey Coleman, Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7816 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Second Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020 AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. ACTION: Notice of meeting. *Authority:* 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provision of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)announces the second in a series of federal advisory committee meetings regarding the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2020, to be held online (via Webex software). This Committee meeting will be the equivalent of an in-person meeting of the Committee and will be open to the public. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020 will review the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and efforts to develop goals and objectives to improve the health status and reduce health risks for Americans by the year 2020. The Committee will provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services advice and consultation for developing and implementing the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention goals and objectives and provide recommendations for initiatives to occur during the initial implementation phase of the goals and objectives. HHS will use the recommendations to inform the development of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2020 and the process for implementing the objectives. The intent is to develop and launch objectives designed to improve the health status and reduce health risks for Americans by the year 2020. DATES: The Committee will meet on May 1, 2008, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held online, via WebEx software. For detailed instructions about how to make sure that your windows computer/browser is set up for WebEx, please visit the “Secretary's Advisory Committee” page of the Healthy People Web site at: *http://www.healthypeople.gov/hp2020/advisory/default.asp* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carter Blakey, Designated Federal Officer, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852,

(240)453-8250 (telephone),

(240)453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Internet at *http://www.healthypeople.gov* . For information on meeting logistics, please contact Hilary Scherer at *HP2020@norc.org* (e-mail),

(301)634-9374 (phone) or

(301)634-9301 (fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The names of the 13 members of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020 are available at *http://www.healthypeople.gov* . *Purpose of Meeting:* Every 10 years, through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade, along with the new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Since 1979, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives to meet a broad range of health needs, encourage collaborations across sectors, guide individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measure the impact of our disease prevention and health promotion activities. Healthy People 2020 will reflect assessments of major risks to health and wellness, changing public health priorities, and emerging technologies related to our nation's health preparedness and prevention. *Public Participation at Meeting:* Members of the public are invited to listen to the online Advisory Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during the online Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020 meeting. Written comments, however, are welcome throughout the development process of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2020 and may be e-mailed to *HP2020@hhs.gov* . To listen to the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register to attend the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020 at the Healthy People Web site located at *http://www.healthypeople.gov* . Registrations must be completed by close of business Eastern Daylight Time on April 28, 2008. Participation in the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum WebEx capacity is reached. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed WebEx capacity. Individuals on the waiting list will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to Hilary Scherer at *HP2020@norc.org* (e-mail),

(301)634-9374 (phone) or

(301)634-9301 (fax). Dated: April 8, 2008. Penelope Slade Royall, RADM, USPHS, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, (Disease Prevention and Health Promotion), Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. [FR Doc. E8-7843 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 25th meeting of the American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 29, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/chroniccare/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The workgroup will hear testimony on ways to use information technology to better coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions and will discuss this information in light of opportunities to better facilitate patient care coordination. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/chroniccare/cc_instruct.html* . Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7713 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 19th meeting of the American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 27, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. [Eastern Time]. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.govlhealthit/ahic/confidentiality/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup Members will continue discussing and evaluating the confidentiality, privacy, and security protections and requirements for participants in electronic health information exchange environments. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/cps_instruct.html* . Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7714 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 23rd meeting of the American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 21, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. {Eastern} ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthitlahic/healthrecords/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion on ways to achieve widespread adoption of certified EHRs, minimizing gaps in adoption among providers. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthrecords/ehr_instruct.html.* Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7716 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 26th meeting of the American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 15, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern]. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/consumer/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion on how to encourage the widespread adoption of a personal health record that is easy-to-use, portable, longitudinal, affordable, and consumer-centered. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/consumer/ce_instruct.html* . Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7718 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Quality Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 17th meeting of the American Health Information Community Quality Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 9, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern]. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/quality/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion on how health information technology can provide the data needed for the development of quality measures that are useful to patients and others in the health care industry, automate the measurement and reporting of a comprehensive current and future set of quality measures, and accelerate the use of clinical decision support that can improve performance on those quality measures. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/quality/quality_instruct.html* . Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7719 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 26th meeting of the American Health Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 7, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern Time]. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion on how to facilitate the flow of reliable health information among population health and clinical care systems necessary to protect and improve the public's health. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/population/pop_instruct.html.* Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7720 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 15th meeting of the American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92.463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: May 2, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern Time]. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring a photo ID for entry to a Federal building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthcare/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will discuss possible common data standards to incorporate interoperable, clinically useful genetic/genomic information and analytical tools into Electronic Health Records

(EHRs)to support clinical decision-making for the clinician and consumer. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthcare/phc_instruct.html* . Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-7722 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-08-08AY] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(C)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Maryam Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov* . Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(ACEs)is more common than previously understood, and that those affected by ACEs will have a major impact on the delivery of health care services through higher utilization and treatment costs. Although these findings are widely cited by psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers, it is less clear that this information has circulated broadly within medical professions where it may be helpful in secondary and tertiary prevention of health problems. The literature also suggests that physicians may be uncomfortable with screening adult patients for ACEs. As part of ongoing efforts to reduce the burden of chronic disease, the Division of Adult and Community Health at CDC seeks to collect information about the penetration into current medical education of evidence concerning the relationship between ACEs and poor adult health. Information will be collected by administering a brief voluntary questionnaire to 300 fourth-year medical residents. The sample will be drawn from a range of U.S. medical schools as well as through the American Medical Student Association. Potential participants will be solicited via e-mail, and those who choose to participate will be directed via a web-link to a web-based survey instrument. Information to be collected includes residency type, public health experience, and an attitudes and knowledge measure designed to determine medical residents' current expertise in recognizing the long-term outcomes associated with adverse childhood experiences. By understanding the quality of medical education in this area and the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of medical residents, educational initiatives can be developed that will address the unmet needs of future physicians to care for the large number of patients burdened by ACEs. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Total burden (in hours) Medical School Residents 300 1 30/60 150 Dated: April 8, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-7844 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-08-07BD] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at

(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov* . Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Building Related Asthma Research in Public Schools—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, Public Law 91-596 (section 20[a][1]) authorizes the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. NIOSH is conducting a longitudinal study among teachers and staff in public schools. The goals of this study are

(1)to document the time course of changes in respiratory health, sick leave, and quality of life in relation to building remediation for water incursion and dampness problems;

(2)to validate the reporting of building-related lower respiratory symptoms in school staff with bronchial hyper-responsiveness by the use of serial spirometry to look for building-related patterns of airflow variability; and

(3)to demonstrate that a toolkit comprised of a semi-quantitative index for assessing water damage and signs of moisture in schools, along with a short health questionnaire, can be used by school personnel to pinpoint specific problem areas and aid remediation efforts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored the Institute of Medicine to make an exhaustive review of the published literature relating exposures in damp buildings to health consequences. The committee findings, summarized in *Damp Indoor Spaces and Health* (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science 2004), concluded that sufficient evidence exists for associating the presence of mold or other agents in damp buildings to nasal and throat symptoms, cough, wheeze, asthma symptoms in sensitized asthmatics, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis in susceptible persons. Identification of specific causal agents for these health outcomes in damp environments requires more investigation, and more research and demonstration projects are needed to evaluate interventions in damp buildings. NIOSH is proposing to conduct an initial cross-sectional respiratory health survey in three public schools. The study will then continue with two additional years of longitudinal follow-up, which will be used to assess respiratory health and environmental conditions in relation to time and intervention status in the three schools. NIOSH will study one school with no history of building leaks and good control of internal moisture sources, one school with previous building leaks and water damage but with subsequent renovation before the start of the study, and one school with current building leaks and dampness problems with renovation scheduled during the study. The questionnaire will be administered each year by a NIOSH interviewer who will record the responses directly into a computer. The questionnaire will be offered to all school employees; we expect no more than 300 participants. It will include sections on the participant's medical history, work history, and home environment. For participants who no longer work at the school, a short questionnaire will be administered by NIOSH staff over the telephone during the second and third years of the study. Assuming that 10% of the participants will leave the school during the three-year period, we expect to interview about 30 former workers. All participants from the initial cross-sectional survey meeting an epidemiologic definition of asthma and reporting that the symptoms improve away from the school will be asked to perform spirometry and a methacholine challenge test, or if obstructed, a bronchodilator test, both of which are standard medical tests for asthma; NIOSH anticipates about 45 respondents for these tests. A maximum of twenty participants who are positive for either lung function test will be asked to participate in the serial spirometry study, which will cover three weeks during the school term and an additional three weeks during the summer break. The school nurse will be trained in using a shortened version of the health questionnaire to all school staff and analyze the results of the survey. Additionally, facility personnel will be trained in the use of a semi-quantitative index tool and asked to use the tool to assess areas in the schools for water damage and signs of moisture during their routine inspections. Participation in all components of the study is completely voluntary. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1030. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Forms Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Teachers and staff NIOSH-Administered Questionnaire 300 1 45/60 Former teachers and staff Former Worker Questionnaire (Years 2 & 3 only) 30 1 9/60 Teachers and staff Spirometry, Methacholine Challenge Test or Bronchodilator Administration 45 1 1 Teachers and staff Serial Spirometry 20 1 37 Facility personnel Semi-Quantitative Assessment Sheet 3 1 5 Dated: April 8, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-7845 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-08-08AV] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* *Comments are invited on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project Cost and Follow-up Assessment of Administration on Aging (AoA)—Funded Fall Prevention Programs for Older Adults—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description NCIPC seeks to examine cost of implementing each of the three AoA-funded fall prevention programs for older adults (Stepping On, Moving for Better Balance and Matter of Balance) and to assess the maintenance of fall prevention behaviors among participants six months after completing the Matter of Balance program. To assess the maintenance of fall prevention behaviors, CDC will conduct telephone interviews of 300 Matter of Balance program participants six months after they have completed the program. The interview will assess their knowledge and self-efficacy related to falls as taught in the course, their activity and exercise levels, and their reported falls both before and after the program. The results of the follow-up assessment will determine the extent to which preventive behaviors learned during the Matter of Balance program are maintained and can continue to reduce fall risk. The cost assessment will calculate the lifecycle cost of the Stepping On, Moving for Better Balance, and Matter of Balance programs. It will also include calculating the investment costs required to implement each program, as well as the ongoing operational costs associated with each program. These costs will be allocated over a defined period of time, depending on the average or standard amount of time these programs continue to operate (standard lifecycle analysis ranges from five to 10 years). As part of the lifecycle cost calculation, these data will allow us to compare program costs and to identify specific cost drivers, cost risks, and unique financial attributes of each program. Local program coordinators for the 200 sites in each of the AoA-funded states will collect the cost data using lifecycle cost spreadsheets that will be returned to CDC for analysis. The results of these studies will support the replication and dissemination of these fall prevention programs and enable them to reach more older adults. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours Data collection activity Number of respondents Number of responses Average burden per response Total burden (in hours) Cost Assessment 200 1 2 400 Impact Survey 300 1 1 300 Total 700 Dated: April 7, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-7857 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form N-648, Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions; OMB Control No. 1615-0060. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until June 13, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail, please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0060 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form N-648. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract* : *Primary* : Individuals and households. USCIS uses the Form N-648 medical certification issued by the licensed medical professional to substantiate a claim for an exception to the requirements of section 312(a) of the Act.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 20,000 responses at 2 hours per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 40,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: April 8, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-7865 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5147-FA-01] Announcement of Funding Awards for the Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program; Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice of funding awards. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the 2007 Notice of Funding Availability

(NOFA)for the section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing grants program. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen E. Daly, Director, Office of Policy Development and Coordination, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone

(202)402-5552 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at

(800)877-8339. For general information on this and other HUD programs, call Community Connections at

(800)998-9999 or visit the HUD Web site at *http://www.hud.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HUD's Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program is authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-120, 107 Stat. 1148, 42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as amended, and the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 109-289, division B, as amended by Pub. L. 109-369 and Pub. L. 109-383). The section 4 Capacity Building program provides grants to national community development intermediaries to enhance the capacity and ability of community development corporations and community housing development organizations to carry out community development and affordable housing activities that benefit low-income families and persons. Capacity Building funds support activities such as training, education, support, loans, grants, and development assistance. The Fiscal Year 2007 competition was announced in the **Federal Register** on September 18, 2007 (72 FR 53255). The NOFA allowed for approximately $29.59 million for section 4 Capacity Building grants. Applications were rated and selected for funding on the basis of selection criteria contained in that Notice. For the Fiscal Year 2007 competition, HUD awarded two competitive section 4 Capacity Building grants totaling $26,140,000. In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and the amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document. Dated: April 4, 2008. Nelson R. Bregón, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Appendix A—Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Awards for the Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program Recipient State Amount Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. MD $13,070,000 Local Initiatives Support Corporation NY 13,070,000 Total $26,140,000 [FR Doc. E8-7834 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-R-2008-N0028; 40136-1265-0000-S3] Red River National Wildlife Refuge, Caddo, Bossier, Desoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, LA AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the alternative we propose to use to manage this refuge for the 15 years following approval of the Final CCP. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to: Tina Chouinard, Natural Resource Planner, Fish and Wildlife Service, 6772 Highway 76 South, Stanton, Tennessee 38069. The Draft CCP/EA may also be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet Site: *http://southeast.fws.gov/planning.* Comments on the Draft CCP/EA may be submitted to the above address or via electronic mail to: *tina_chouinard@fws.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Chouinard; Telephone: 731/780-8208; or Fax: 731/772-7839. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Red River National Wildlife Refuge. We started the process through a notice in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12710). The Red River National Wildlife Refuge is a unit of the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The refuge was signed into existence on October 13, 2000, with the passage of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act. With land acquisition, the refuge was formally established in August 2002. There are three purposes of the refuge, as stated in the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act. These are to:

(1)Provide for the restoration and conservation of native plants and animal communities on suitable sites in the Red River basin, including restoration of extirpated species;

(2)provide habitat for migratory birds; and

(3)provide technical assistance to private landowners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife. According to legislation, the refuge is approved for up to approximately 50,000 acres of Federal lands and waters along that section of the Red River between Colfax, Louisiana, and the Arkansas State line, a distance of approximately 120 miles. The refuge growth will be strategically planned within five focus areas that will each have a management unit of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. These focus areas are: Lower Cane River (Natchitoches Parish); Spanish Lake Lowlands (Natchitoches Parish); Bayou Pierre Floodplain (Desoto and Red River Parishes); Headquarters Site (Bossier Parish); and Wardview (Caddo Parish). Currently, the Service has acquired 9,787 acres, with 40,213 acres remaining to be purchased. The lands within the five areas will be acquired through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and conservation easements, leases, and/or cooperative agreements from willing landowners. Currently, fee title lands have been purchased within portions of all the focus areas, with the exception of Wardview. Historically, the Red River Valley was forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub swamps; however, for the last three decades, the Red River Valley has been utilized extensively for agricultural production, and, as a result, has lost almost all of its forest cover. The river itself was very turbid, and its wildlife and fishery habitat was poor compared to other parts of the State. After completion of the Red River Waterway Project in 1994, water levels in the river became higher and more constant, greatly reducing its turbidity. Water quality improved and with seasonal retention of water levels, a rich diversity of aquatic flora and fauna has developed. Increased water levels on the river also improved some adjacent habitats. Flooded timber and farm fields with wet depressions are now common, providing habitat for migratory birds. The refuge has been involved in several reforestation projects and has improved moist-soil habitat. With management of this refuge in its infancy, the planning process will define priorities for current and future refuge resources and management. Wildlife species found on the refuge are typical of forested wetlands and fields. The Red River is a historic migration corridor for migratory birds that use the Central and Mississippi Flyways on their journey to the Gulf Coast. Examples of priority species for conservation include the swallow-tailed kite, Swainson's warbler, yellow-billed cuckoo, and several species of waterfowl. Wading birds and shorebirds use the numerous sandbars, shallow flooded fields, and mudflats. Listed species include the interior least tern, which nests on riverine sandbars; the piping plover; and the possibility of the transient Louisiana black bear. Resident game and furbearer species are the typical variety of white-tailed deer, gray and fox squirrels, mink, and beaver. A variety of nongame mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are also present. Background The CCP Process The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act and NEPA. Significant issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include: management of white-tailed deer, invasive species, waterfowl, and bottomland hardwood forests; refuge access; land acquisition to include a minor boundary expansion; visitor services; visitor center; watershed protection; and cultural resource protection. CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose Alternative C as the proposed alternative. Alternatives A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below. Alternative A—No Action Alternative Red River National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and is considered to be in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Area. As such, it is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation-planning initiatives. Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, present management of the refuge would continue at its current level of participation in these initiatives throughout the 15-year duration of the CCP. Current approaches to managing wildlife and habitats, protecting resources, and allowing for public use would remain unchanged. The main habitat types on the refuge are bottomland hardwood forests, managed wetlands, agriculture, and moist-soil units. Under Alternative A, management would continue to work with electric utilities and partners to restore bottomland hardwood forest habitat through the “Carbon Sequestration Program.” The refuge would continue to provide habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat for wood ducks. It would also maintain the current habitat mix for the benefit of other migratory birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, and landbirds. Staff would continue existing surveys and monitor long-term population trends and health of resident species. Currently, there are few public use and environmental education programs on the refuge. The refuge would continue to serve the public without being guided by a Visitor Services' Management Plan, relying instead on experience, general Service mandates and practices, and guidance and advice from recreation staff in the Regional Office. A new Headquarters/Visitor Center has been budgeted and would be constructed. The staff would continue to consist of one employee, the refuge manager. Alternative B—Minimize Management and Visitor Services Under Alternative B, there would be less management of habitat and wildlife and a reduced public use program. Biological inventorying and monitoring would be intensified and enhanced with management programs developed that could be implemented less frequently, yet still accomplish the objectives. Extensive baseline inventorying and monitoring programs would be conducted with several partners to provide a solid foundation for the current condition of refuge habitats and wildlife, while monitoring for changes in trends. Additional research projects would be implemented through granting and partnership opportunities with other agencies and universities. An intensive inventory of bottomland hardwood forests to define current conditions and monitor natural successional changes would be implemented. Management in the bottoms would be limited so that the forest would go through natural succession, as defined in a revised Habitat Management Plan. Open fields would be allowed to go through natural succession to bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil units would not be maintained. Management of invasive species would become a priority to establish baseline information on location and density. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. Public use would be limited with custodial-level maintenance. Public use would be monitored for impacts to wildlife. An extensive survey for monitoring the deer population and its association with habitat conditions would be implemented. Fishing and hunting would continue as currently managed. Environmental education, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography would be accommodated at present levels with the addition of a Visitor Center; but access would be limited to July-October and February-April to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. Staffing would increase by five positions [ *e.g.* , wildlife biologist, maintenance worker, equipment operator, administrative officer, and a park ranger (law enforcement)] to handle the increase in biological inventory and monitoring and control of invasive species. Alternative C—Optimize Biological Program and Visitor Services (Proposed) Under Alternative C, the proposed alternative, the refuge would strive to optimize both its biological program and visitor services program. As explained in the Draft CCP/EA, Louisiana's Red River Valley is one of the most heavily degraded ecosystems in the State. The greatest habitat type lost was bottomland hardwood forest; therefore, bottomland hardwood forest habitat restoration and management would continue to be an important goal under this alternative. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to participate in the Carbon Sequestration Program as described in the Draft CCP/EA. Any lands within the acquisition boundary of the refuge that have had their forest cover removed prior to 1990, would be targeted for acquisition and reforestation. The refuge would continue to benefit resident wildlife species and would aim to increase its knowledge base about migratory birds by developing and implementing monitoring programs. It would continue to provide habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, nesting colonial waterbirds, and landbirds. Resources would be used to create and/or maintain a variety of habitats compatible with historic habitat types of the Red River Valley. These would include the above-mentioned bottomland hardwood forest habitat, as well as moist prairie. Prior farming practices on lands acquired by the refuge have left, in place, a number of water control structures. These water control structures would be maintained and enhanced to control water levels on several thousand acres of refuge lands. Efforts to control invasive species would increase. Land acquisition, reforestation, and resource protection would be intensified from the level now maintained in the No Action Alternative. The refuge would expand the approved acquisition boundary to incorporate 1,413 acres in the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit, 87 acres in the Headquarters Unit, and 1,938 acres in the Lower Cane Unit. In the refuge's Private Lands Program, staff would work with private landowners on adjacent tracts to manage and improve habitats. The refuge would develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). Until such time as the CRMP is completed and implemented, the refuge would follow standard Service protocol and procedures in conducting cultural resource surveys by qualified professionals as needed. Wildlife-dependent visitor services would increase under this alternative. Within three years of CCP completion, the refuge would develop a Visitor Services' Plan to be used in expanding public use facilities and opportunities on the refuge. This step-down management plan would provide overall, long-term direction and guidance in developing and running a larger public use program at Red River Refuge. Federal funds are now available to construct a Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Center at the Headquarters Unit. The new visitor center would include a small auditorium for use in talks, meetings, films, videos, and other audio-visual presentations. Alternative C would also increase opportunities for visitors by adding facilities such as photo-blinds, observation sites, and trails. Over the 15-year life of the CCP, more emphasis would be placed on environmental education and interpretation to increase the public's understanding of the importance of habitats and resources of the Red River Valley. Within five years of CCP approval, the refuge would prepare a Fishing Plan that would outline and expand permissible fishing opportunities within the refuge. A fishing pier would be constructed at the Headquarters Unit. Staff would investigate opportunities for expanding hunting possibilities. Alternative C would provide an assistant manager, a full-time law enforcement officer, an equipment operator, a maintenance worker, a wildlife biologist, an administrative assistant, and an outdoor recreational specialist. Next Step After the comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and Finding of No Significant Impact. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57. Dated: February 8, 2008. Cynthia K. Dohner, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-7853 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [F-21964, AA-10702, AA-10703, AA-10704, AA-11791; AK-962-1410-HY-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Bering Straits Native Corporation for lands located in the vicinity of Wales and Saint Michael, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Nome Nugget. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until May 14, 2008 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from:Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13,Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.* Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Dina L. Torres, Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch. [FR Doc. E8-7839 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AA-6655-D, AA-6655-G, AA-6655-H, AA-6655-A2; AK-964-1410-KC-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Chignik River Limited. The lands are in the vicinity of Chignik Lake, Alaska, and are located in: Seward Meridian, Alaska Sec. 12(a) Lands T. 43 S., R. 60 W., Sec. 18. Containing 642.06 acres. T. 43 S., R. 61 W., Secs. 1, 2, and 12; Secs. 25, 26, 34, and 35 Containing approximately 4,451 acres. T. 44 S., R. 61 W., Secs. 4 and 9 Containing approximately 1,280 acres. T. 44 S., R. 62 W., Secs. 26 and 36. Containing approximately 1,241 acres. Sec. 12(b) Lands T. 44 S., R. 62 W., Sec. 31. Containing approximately 639 acres. Aggregating approximately 8,253.06 acres. The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Bristol Bay Native Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Chignik River Limited. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Bristol Bay Times. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until May 14, 2008 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from:Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.* Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Jason Robinson, Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I. [FR Doc. E8-7846 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NM-940-08-1420-BJ] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Oklahoma AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The plat of survey described below is scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico,

(30)thirty calendar days from the date of this publication, per BLM Manual 2097, Opening Orders. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, a portion of the subdivision of section 3, and the survey of a portion of the subdivision of section 3, and the metes and bounds survey of the boundaries of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the City of Artesia Airport lease, Township 17 South, Range 25 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted April 2, 2008, for Group 1074 NM. If a protest against a survey, in accordance with 43 CFR 4.450-2, of the above plat is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been addressed. A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, Bureau of Land Management at the address below, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet. Contact Marcella Montoya at 505-438-7537, or *Marcella_Montoya@nm.blm.gov* , for assistance. Dated: April 2, 2008. Robert Casias, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico. [FR Doc. E8-7824 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-921; WYW 172386] Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Transfer of Jurisdiction; Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy

(DOE)has filed an application requesting the Secretary of the Interior to segregate from the mining laws approximately 749.08 acres of public land and 2559.13 acres of Federal reserved mineral interests underlying private surface estate from mining associated with a proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction. The proposed withdrawal will protect public health and safety on lands contaminated by previous mining and milling operations. This notice temporarily segregates the lands for up to 2 years from location and entry under the United States mining laws while the withdrawal application is being processed. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the State Director, BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-1828. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Booth, Realty Specialist, BLM Wyoming State Office, at the above address, 307-775-6124. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Department of Energy has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management to segregate from the United States mining laws the following described public lands and Federal reserved mineral interests. Jurisdiction over approximately 749.08 acres of public lands and 2559.13 acres of federally owned mineral interests will ultimately be withdrawn and transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Energy, subject to valid existing rights. Sixth Principal Meridian T. 29 N., R. 91 W., Sec. 6, lots 8 through 13, incl., E 1/2 SE 1/4 ; T. 29 N., R. 92 W., Sec. 1, lots 1 and 2, S 1/2 NE 1/4 , SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 2, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 11, NW 1/4 NE 1/4 , NE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; Sec. 12, W 1/2 NE 1/4 . The area described contains approximately 749.08 acres of public surface and Federal minerals in Fremont County. T. 29 N., R. 91 W., Sec. 6, lot 5, SE 1/4 NW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 7, lots 3 and 4, E 1/2 SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 18, lot 1, NE 1/4 NW 1/4 . T. 29 N., R. 92 W., Sec. 1, lot 4, SW 1/4 , W 1/2 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 2, NE 1/4 SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , N 1/2 SE 1/4 , SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 3, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 11, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 , NW 1/4 NW 1/4 , S 1/2 N 1/2 , S 1/2 ; Sec. 12, E 1/2 NE 1/4 , NW 1/4 , S 1/2 ; Sec. 13, N 1/2 ; Sec. 14, NE 1/4 , NE 1/4 NW 1/4 . The area described contains approximately 2559.13 acres of Federal reserved minerals underlying private surface in Fremont County. The purpose of the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction is to allow the United States Department of Energy perpetual administration over the land as a hazardous material site under the authority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 7902, *et seq.* For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed action may present their views in writing to the Wyoming State Director, BLM, at the address noted above. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, and records relating to the proposed withdrawal will be available for public review during regular business hours at the BLM Wyoming State Office at the address specified above. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. This application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300. Rights-of-way, leases, permits, cooperative agreements and other discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature would continue under the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. No water rights would be needed to fulfill the purpose of this withdrawal. Effective on the date of publication of this notice, the lands will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws. The segregative effect of this application will terminate April 14, 2010, unless final withdrawal action is taken or the application is denied or cancelled prior to that date (43 CFR 2310.2). Notice of any action will be published in the **Federal Register** . Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction must submit a written request to the BLM Wyoming State Director at the address indicated above within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the **Federal Register** at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3-1) Dated: March 24, 2008. Michael Madrid, Chief, Branch of Fluid Mineral Operations, Lands and Appraisal. [FR Doc. E8-7837 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-921; WYW 164606, WYW 164607] Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Transfer of Jurisdiction; Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy

(DOE)has filed application requesting the Secretary of the Interior segregate from the mining laws approximately 1345 acres of public land associated with the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction. The proposed withdrawal will protect public health and safety on lands contaminated by previous mining and milling operations. This notice temporarily segregates the lands for up to 2 years from location and entry under the United States mining laws while the withdrawal application is being processed. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the State Director, BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-1828. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Booth, Realty Specialist, BLM Wyoming State Office, at the above address, 307-775-6124. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Department of Energy has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management to segregate from the United States mining laws the public lands described below. Jurisdiction over approximately 1345 acres will ultimately be withdrawn and transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Energy, subject to valid existing rights. Sixth Principal Meridian T. 38 N., R. 73 W., Sec. 9, W 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , N 1/2 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 . T. 33 N., R. 89 W., Sec. 9, SE 1/4 ; Sec. 10, S 1/2 ; Sec. 15, N 1/2 , SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 21, NE 1/4 ; and Sec. 22, N 1/2 . The area described contains approximately 1345 acres in Converse, Fremont and Natrona Counties. The purpose of the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction is to allow the United States Department of Energy perpetual administration over the land as a hazardous material site under the authority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 7902, *et seq.* For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed action may present their views in writing to the Wyoming State Director, BLM, at the address noted above. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, and records relating to the proposed withdrawal will be available for public review during regular business hours at the BLM Wyoming State Office at the address specified above. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. This application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300. Rights-of-way, leases, permits, cooperative agreements and other discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature would continue under the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. No water rights would be needed to fulfill the purpose of this withdrawal. Effective on the date of publication of this notice, the lands will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws. The segregative effect of this application will terminate April 14, 2010, unless final withdrawal action is taken or the application is denied or cancelled prior to that date (43 CFR 2310.2). Notice of any action will be published in the **Federal Register** . Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal and transfer of jurisdiction must submit a written request to the BLM Wyoming State Director at the address indicated above within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the **Federal Register** at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3-1) Dated: March 24, 2008. Michael Madrid, Chief, Branch of Fluid Mineral Operations, Lands and Appraisal. [FR Doc. E8-7840 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-455 and 731-TA-1149-1150 (Preliminary)] Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From China and Korea AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-455 (Preliminary) and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1149-1150 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from China and Korea of certain circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe, provided for in subheadings 7306.19.10 and 7306.19.51 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China, and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 1673a (c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in these investigations in 45 days, or in this case by May 19, 2008. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 27, 2008. 1 Prior to February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise was provided for in subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background.* —These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on April 3, 2008, by Maverick Tube Corp. (Houston, TX), Tex-Tube Co. (Houston, TX), U.S. Steel Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (Pittsburgh, PA). *Participation in the investigations and public service list.* —Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance. *Limited disclosure of business proprietary information

(BPI)under an administrative protective order

(APO)and BPI service list.* —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. *Conference.* —The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on April 24, 2008, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200) not later than April 21, 2008, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference. *Written submissions.* —As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before April 29, 2008, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II

(C)of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. Reg. 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 4, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-7830 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Park System Resource Protection Act Notice is hereby given that on April 7, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree” ) in *United States* v. *Kristin R. Blake,* Civil Action No. 07-5001 MMM (FMOx), was lodged with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. In this action the United States sought to recover response costs and damages pursuant to the Park System Resource Protection Act (“PSRPA), 16 U.S.C. 19jj to 19jj-4, and treble damages pursuant to California trespass law for injury to and destruction of vegetation resulting from the defendant's alleged cutting of a horse trail on a parcel owned by the United States and located within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The Decree would settle these claims in return for a payment of $56,500, to be deposited in the Department of the Interior's Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund, and applied toward response and damage assessment costs incurred as a result of the defendant's alleged incursion onto property of the United States and/or natural resource restoration projects related to this incident. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should reference *United States* v. *Kristin R. Blake.,* Civil Action No. 07-5001 MMM (FMOx), D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-08909. The Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 300 North Los Angeles Street, room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012. During the public comment period, the Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Henry Friedman, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-7779 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of petitions for modification of existing mandatory safety standards. SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification filed by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards published in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods: 1. *Electronic mail: Standards-Petitions@dol.gov* . 2. *Facsimile:* 1-202-693-9441. 3. *Regular Mail:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. 4. *Hand-Delivery or Courier:* MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. We will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the receptionist desk on the 21st floor. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence D. Reynolds, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9449 (Voice), *reynolds.lawrence@dol.gov* (E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax), or contact Barbara Barron at 202-693-9447 (Voice), *barron.barbara@dol.gov* (E- mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax). [These are not toll-free numbers]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that:

(1)An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

(2)that the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modifications. II. Petitions for Modification *Docket Number:* M-2008-008-C. *Petitioner:* D. Molesevich & Sons Construction Company, Inc., 333 South Pine Street, Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania 17851. *Mine:* Snake Road Stripping Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09485, located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 77.1200(c) &

(k)(Mine map). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines at regular intervals through the area to be mined and to limit the required mapping of mine workings below to those present within 100 feet of the vein(s) being mined. The petitioner states that:

(1)Due to the steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, contours provide no useful information and their presence would make portions of the map illegible;

(2)use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines has been practiced since the late 1800s thereby providing critical information relative to the spacing between veins and proximity to other mine workings which fluctuate considerably;

(3)the vast majority of current surface anthracite mining involves either the mining of remnant pillars from previous mining/mine operators or the mining of veins of lower quality in proximity to inaccessible and frequently flooded abandoned mine workings which may or may not be mapped; and

(4)the mine workings below are usually inactive and abandoned, therefore, are not subject to changes during the life of the mine, but active mines will be mapped. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will in no way provide less than the same measure of protection than that afforded the miners under the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-009-C. *Petitioner:* XMV, Inc., 215 Suppliers Road, Bluefield, Virginia 24605. *Mine:* Mine No. 35, MSHA I.D. No. 46-08131, located in McDowell County, West Virginia. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.364(b)(4) (Weekly examination). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the following examinations to be conducted in lieu of evaluating the seals underground:

(1)Establish Monitoring Point P at an abandoned portal used by Postar Coal Company, Inc., Postar No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-07983 for bleeder flow evaluation and establish Evaluation Point X at a drill hole near the Mine No. 35, MSHA I.D. No. 46-08131 side of the separator seals;

(2)use Monitoring Point P to evaluate the atmosphere behind the separator seals in the abandoned Postar No. 1 Mine to insure that the atmosphere remains at a non-explosive range and use Evaluation Point X to insure that the No. 35 Mine side of the separator seals are being ventilated with intake air provided by the exhausting bleeder fan; and

(3)have a certified person conduct weekly examinations and evaluations that will be maintained in an approved record book. The petitioner states that:

(1)The Mine is a drift operation with multiple outcrop and surface openings with no history of methane or ventilation problems;

(2)the separator seals existed when the cross through to the U.S. Steel No. 9 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-01418 old panel took place and the bleeder system was established; and

(3)ventilation is set up to prevent any contaminant from the abandoned area to reach the working section. The petitioner asserts that Monitoring Point P and Evaluation Point X will provide a level of safety as is required by the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-010-C. *Petitioner:* Pleasant View Mining Company, Inc., 755 Nebo Road, Madisonville, Kentucky 42431. *Mine:* Richland No. 9 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 15-17232, located in Hopkins County, Kentucky. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1101-1(b) (Deluge-type water spray systems). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance in lieu of using blow-off dust covers for deluge-type water spray nozzles. The petitioner proposes to have a person trained in the testing procedures specific to the deluge-type water spray fire suppression systems used at each belt drive to conduct the following procedures once each week:

(1)A visual examination of each of the deluge-type water spray fire suppression system;

(2)a functional test of the deluge-type water spray fire suppression systems by actuating the system and observing its performance; and

(3)record the results of the examination and functional test in a book maintained on the surface and made available to the authorized representative of the Secretary. The record book will be retained for one year. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide a measure of protection equal to or greater than that of the standard. *Docket Number:* M-2008-011-C. *Petitioner:* Chevron Mining, Inc., 12398 New Lexington Road, Barry, Alabama 35546. *Mine:* North River Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 01-00759, located in Fayette County, Alabama. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.507 (Power Connection Points). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of three-phase, alternating current, and deep-well non-permissible pumps in boreholes in the mine. The petitioner proposes to use non-permissible pumps in boreholes into an area of the North River Mine where water has accumulated and not on intake air. The petitioner states that:

(1)The pump will be equipped with sensors to determine high and low water level;

(2)pumps in inaccessible underground locations will utilize undercurrent shutdown protection with redundant electronic pressure transducers that are suitable for submersible pump applications;

(3)the low water probe will be located not less than 30 feet above the pump inlet and motor and electrical connections of the pump;

(4)the high, low, or level water probes will include redundant electronic pressure transducers that are suitable for submersible pump control application;

(5)all probe circuits will be protected by MSHA approved intrinsically safe barriers; and

(6)the pumps will also be equipped with intrinsically safe ultrasonic water level sensors isolated by MSHA approved barriers. The petitioner further states that within 60 days of the Proposed Decision and Order, proposed revisions of its Part 48 training plan will be submitted to the District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. Persons may review a complete description of petitioner's alternative method and procedures at the MSHA address listed in this notice. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection to all miners as would be provided by the standard. Jack Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. [FR Doc. E8-7804 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control Numbers Under the Paperwork Reduction Act AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice; announcement of OMB approval of information collection requirements. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces that OMB has extended its approval for a number of information collection requirements found in sections of 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926. OSHA sought approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), and, as required by that Act, is announcing the approval numbers and expiration dates for those requirements. DATES: This notice is effective April 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:

(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a series of **Federal Register** notices, the Agency announced its requests to OMB to renew its current extensions of approvals for various information collection (paperwork) requirements in its safety and health standards for general industry, shipyard employment, and the construction industry, ( *i.e.* , 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926). In these **Federal Register** announcements, the Agency provided 60-day comment periods for the public to respond to OSHA's burden hour and cost estimates. In accordance with PRA-95 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB renewed its approval for these information collection requirements and assigned OMB control numbers to these requirements. The table below provides the following information for each of these OMB-approved requirements: The title of the collection; the date of the **Federal Register** notice; the **Federal Register** reference (date, volume, and leading page); OMB's control number; and the new expiration date. Title Date of Federal Register publication, Federal Register reference, and OSHA docket number OMB control number Expiration date Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records (29 CFR 1910.1020) 02/15/2007, 72 FR 7465, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0009 1218-0065 05/31/2010 Additional Requirements for Special Dipping and Coating Operations (Dip Tanks) (29 CFR 1910.126(g)(4)) 03/15/2007, 72 FR 12200, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0014 1218-0237 08/31/2010 Application for Training Grant 06/21/2007, 72 FR 34299, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0056 1218-0020 11/30/2010 Asbestos in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1001) 04/05/2007, 72 FR 16830, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026 1218-0133 08/31/2010 Bloodborne Pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030) 07/27/2007, 72 FR 41357, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0063 1218-0180 01/31/2011 Concrete and Masonry Construction (29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart Q) 07/24/2007, 72 FR 40337, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0059 1218-0095 12/31/2010 Construction Fall Protection Plans and Training Requirements (29 CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503) 03/28/2007, 72 FR 14615, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0037 1218-0197 08/31/2010 Cranes and Derricks for Construction (29 CFR 1926.550) 07/31/2007, 72 FR 41775, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0060 1218-0113 12/31/2010 Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes (29 CFR 1910.180) 05/04/2007, 72 FR 25333, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0035 1218-0221 09/30/2010 Definition and Requirements for a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (29 CFR 1910.7) 01/05/2007, 72 FR 583, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0050 1218-0147 06/30/2010 Derricks (29 CFR 1910.181) 03/23/2007, 72 FR 13825, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0025 1218-0222 08/31/2010 Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart P) 07/23/2007, 72 FR 40172, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0057 1218-0248 01/31/2011 Formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048) 02/15/2007, 72 FR 7464, Docket No. OSHA-2008-2007 1218-0145 05/31/2010 Gear Certification, OSHA-70 Form (29 CFR Part 1919) 09/17/2007, 72 FR 52912, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0061 1218-0003 01/31/2011 Grantee Quarterly Progress Report 06/08/2007, 72 FR 31863, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0048 1218-0100 10/31/2010 Ionizing Radiation (29 CFR 1910.1096) 07/27/2007, 72 FR 41358, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0049 1218-0103 01/31/2011 Logging Operations (29 CFR 1910.266) 08/22/2007, 72 FR 47081, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0018 1218-0198 12/31/2010 Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)) 09/06/2007, 72 FR 51253, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020 1218-0226 01/31/2011 Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i) and

(e)(1)(ii)) 06/04/2007, 72 FR 30729, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0036 1218-0229 09/30/2010 Noise Exposure (29 CFR 1910.95) 04/27/2007, 72 FR 21054, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0022 1218-0048 08/31/2010 Overhead and Gantry Cranes (29 CFR 1910.179) 05/30/2007, 72 FR 30035, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0034 1218-0224 09/30/2010 Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)) 07/02/2007, 72 FR 36068, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052 1218-0238 11/30/2010 Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance (29 CFR 1910.66) 10/05/2007, 72 FR 57072, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0062 1218-0121 01/31/2011 Presence Sensing Device Initiation

(PSDI)(29 CFR 1910.217(h)) 03/29/2007, 72 FR 14832, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0027 1218-0143 08/31/2010 Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Federal Employee Protection Statutes 09/18/2007, 72 FR 53266, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0071 1218-0236 01/31/2011 Rigging Equipment for Material Handling (29 CFR 1926.251) 06/22/2007, 72 FR 34483, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0055 1218-0233 11/30/2010 Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (29 CFR 1910.111) 08/16/2007, 72 FR 46097, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0019 1218-0208 01/31/2011 Student Data Form (OSHA Form 182) 05/25/2007, 72 FR 29353, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0047 1218-0172 10/31/2010 The Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (29 CFR 1910.157(f)(16)) 06/18/2007, 72 FR 33537, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0051 1218-0218 10/31/2010 Welding, Cutting and Brazing (29 CFR 1910.255(e)) 07/23/2007, 72 FR 40170, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0050 1218-0207 11/30/2010 In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct, sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the agency informs respondents that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, on April 8, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-7783 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2008-0004] Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified by the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard (§ 1910.1450). DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2008-0004, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number (OSHA-2008-0004) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Jamaa Hill at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( *i.e.* , employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The standard entitled “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories” (29 CFR 1910.1450; the “Standard”) applies to laboratories that use hazardous chemicals in accordance with the Standard's definitions for “laboratory use of hazardous chemicals” and “laboratory scale.” The Standard requires these laboratories to maintain employee exposures at or below the permissible exposure limits specified for the hazardous chemicals in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. They do so by developing a written Chemical Hygiene Plan

(CHP)that describes: Standard operating procedures for using hazardous chemicals; hazard control techniques; equipment reliability measures; employee information-and-training programs; conditions under which the employer must approve operations, procedures, and activities before implementation; and medical consultations and examinations. The CHP also designates personnel responsible for implementing the CHP, and specifies the procedures used to provide additional protection to employees exposed to particularly hazardous chemicals. Other information collection requirements of the Standard include: Documenting exposure monitoring results; notifying employees in writing of these results; presenting specified information and training to employees; establishing a medical surveillance program for overexposed employees; providing required information to the physician; obtaining the physician's written opinion on using proper respiratory equipment and establishing, maintaining, transferring, and disclosing exposure monitoring and medical records. These collection of information requirements, including the CHP, control employee overexposure to hazardous laboratory chemicals, thereby preventing serious illnesses and death among employees exposed to such chemicals. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements contained in the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450). The Agency is requesting to increase its current burden hour total from 270,636 hours to 281,419 hours for a total increase of 10,783 hours. The adjustment is primarily a result of an increase in the number of facilities being monitored (from 43,300 to 45,616) and the number of employees covered by the Standard (from 1,598,385 to 1,660,408) based on updated data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection requirement. *Title:* Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. *OMB Number:* 1218-0131. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or Tribal governments. *Number of Respondents:* 45,616. *Frequency of Response:* Annually; monthly; on occasion. *Total Responses:* 911,446. *Average Time per Response:* Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for a variety of requirements (e.g., for an office clerk to develop and post exposure monitoring results) to 8 hours for an employer to develop a Chemical Hygiene Plan. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 281,419. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $35,978,301. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:

(1)Electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;

(2)by facsimile (FAX); or

(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0004). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES ). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-2350 (TTY

(877)889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, on April 8, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-7785 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA)publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). DATES: Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before *May 14, 2008* . Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments. ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting the Life Cycle Management Division

(NWML)using one of the following means: *Mail:* NARA (NWML), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. *E-mail:* *requestschedule@nara.gov* . *Fax:* 301-837-3698. Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1539. E-mail: *records.mgt@nara.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form

(SF)115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent. The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless specified otherwise. An item in a schedule is media neutral when the disposition instructions may be applied to records regardless of the medium in which the records are created and maintained. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1228.24(b)(3).) No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value. Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request. Schedules Pending 1. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (N1-221-08-1, 22 items, 15 temporary items). Records relating to a program which provides grants and loans for rural telecommunications projects. Proposed for permanent retention are special studies and reports, loan docket files and supporting data, records of technical standards committees, and records relating to approved grants. 2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-08-1, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Master file and standard reports associated with an electronic information system used to report sexual assault and prevention data. Data includes information on the victim and perpetrator, nature of the incident, actions taken, and final results. Proposed for permanent retention are annual reports on sexual assaults. 3. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (N1-434-08-2, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Research and professional files of researchers who have held a range of positions or have been a recognized expert in cross-disciplinary work. Proposed for permanent retention are files of researchers who have achieved national or international prominence in their career. 4. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (N1-563-07-6, 6 items, 4 temporary items). Records tracking allegations of racial, ethnic, and religious profiling by employees and officials of the agency. Proposed for permanent retention are records associated with significant cases. 5. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (N1-79-07-2, 15 items, 7 temporary items). Records related to the implementation and administration of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act national program. Proposed for permanent retention are case files, advisory committee records, awarded grant files, program records, and associated indexes. 6. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide (N1-NU-07-10, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Personnel rosters, listings, cards, indexes and similar records maintained by preparing units. 7. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute (N1-59-08-7, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Records relating to registration for internal and external training, including course information, management reports, course schedules, and travel records. 8. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (N1-58-08-10, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Master file, outputs, and system documentation for the Enterprise Data Access Strategy—Integrated Production Model, which consists of data used in modernization projects. 9. Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Inspector General (N1-173-07-2, 8 items, 5 temporary items). Non-significant investigative files, allegations that do not relate to a specific investigation, audits, strategic plans, and general correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are significant investigative files, semi-annual reports, and annual audit plans. The proposed disposition instructions are limited to paper records for significant investigative files, semi-annual reports, and annual audit plans. 10. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-08-2, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Data, audit logs, user profiles, and system documentation of the Accessions Management Information System used to track information about accessions of electronic records. 11. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-08-03, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Data, audit logs, user profiles, and system documentation used in the verification of format and structure of data submitted by agencies for accession through the Archival Electronic Records Inspection and Control System. 12. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-08-4, 4 items, 4 temporary items). System usage and performance reports, system audit logs, user profiles, and system documentation associated with the Access to Archival Databases System, which provides web access to selected accessioned electronic records, including databases, images and texts. 13. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-08-5, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Data files, system audit logs, custom developed source code, and system documentation associated with the Archival Processing System, which maintains metadata related to the agency's holdings of electronic records such as recording characteristics, preservation master and backup copy management, technical file specifications, tape location management, media recopy and refresh scheduling, and reference requests. 14. Peace Corps, Office of Management (N1-490-08-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master file of an electronic information system used to record volunteers' foreign language test scores. 15. United States Information Agency, Broadcasting Service (N1-306-97-2, 28 items, 16 temporary items). Subject files that are duplicative or are lacking historical significance, travel vouchers, and requests for information. Proposed for permanent retention are records of subject, country, program, and other files that document programs and policies. The proposed disposition instructions are limited to paper records. Dated: April 7, 2008. Michael J. Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for Records Services—Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E8-7867 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 32—Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0001. 3. *How often the collection is required:* There is a one-time submittal of information to receive a license. Renewal applications are submitted every 10 years. In addition, recordkeeping must be performed on an ongoing basis, and reporting of transfer of byproduct material must be reported every calendar year, and in some cases, every calendar quarter. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* All specific licensees who manufacture or initially transfer items containing byproduct material for sale or distribution to general licensees or persons exempt from licensing. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 474 (158 NRC licensees and 316 Agreement State licensees). 6. *An estimate of the number of responses annually:* 474 (158 for NRC licensees and 316 for Agreement State licensees). 7. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 98,477 (29,900 hours for NRC licensees [233 hours reporting, or an average of 0.45 hour per response + 29,667 hours recordkeeping, or 86 hours per record keeper] and 68,577 hours for Agreement State licensees [339 hours reporting, or an average of 0.5 hours per response + 68,238 hours recordkeeping, or an average of 114 hours per record keeper]). 8. *Abstract:* 10 CFR Part 32 establishes requirements for specific licenses for the introduction of byproduct material into products or materials and transfer of the products or materials to general licensees or persons exempt from licensing. It also prescribes requirements governing holders of the specific licenses. Some of the requirements are for information which must be submitted in an application for a specific license, records which must be kept, reports which must be submitted, and information which must be forwarded to general licensees and persons exempt from licensing. In addition, 10 CFR Part 32 prescribes requirements for the issuance of certificates of registration (concerning radiation safety information about a product) to manufacturers or initial transferors of sealed sources and devices. Submission or retention of the information is mandatory for persons subject to the 10 CFR Part 32 requirements. The information is used by NRC to make licensing and other regulatory determinations concerning the use of radioactive byproduct material in products and devices. Submit, by June 13, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by e-mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of April 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-7856 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-150] Ohio State University Research Reactor; Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of a renewed Facility License No. R-75, to be held by Ohio State University (OSU or the licensee), which would authorize continued operation of the Ohio State University Research Reactor (OSURR), located in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Description of Proposed Action The proposed action is approval of the licensee's application for renewal of Facility License No. R-75 for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed license. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated December 15, 1999, as supplemented on August 21, 2002, August 18, 2005, July 26, 2006, May 22, 2007, May 31, 2007, September 4, and September 28, 2007; and February 29, 2008. The OSURR is located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) west of the main campus on land owned by OSU and is a part of the Ohio State University Research Center. The site comprises the reactor building and a small area immediately surrounding it, bounded by a chain-link fence. The nearest permanent residences are located approximately 0.3 miles (0.5 km) to the west and approximately 0.3 miles (0.5 km) to the south. There are no nearby industrial, transportation, or military facilities that could pose a threat to the OSURR. The OSURR is a pool-type, light water moderated and cooled research reactor licensed to operate at a steady-state power level of 500 kilowatts thermal power (kW(t)). A detailed description of the reactor can be found in the OSURR Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The major modifications to the Facility License were conversion from high enriched fuel to low enriched fuel in 1988 and a licensed power increase from 10 kW(t) to 500 kW(t) in November 1990. The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design or operating conditions as part of the renewal request. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, license renewal should not change the environmental impact of facility operation. Summary of the Environmental Assessment The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's application which included an Environmental Report. To document its review, the NRC staff has prepared an environmental assessment

(EA)which discusses the OSURR site and facility; radiological impacts of gaseous, liquid, and solid effluents; environmental and personnel radiation monitoring; radiation dose estimates for the maximum hypothetical accident (MHA); impacts of the “no action” alternative to the proposed action; alternative use of resources; considerations related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and presents the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed action. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 15, 1999 (ML993610185), as supplemented by letters dated August 21, 2002 (ML022380431), August 18, 2005 (ML052350564); July 26, 2006 (ML062090072); May 22, 2007 (ML071430417); May 31, 2007(ML071550098); September 4, 2007 (ML072490367); September 28, 2007 (ML072750038); and February 29, 2008 (ML080650352). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* The EA can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML070230004. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel S. Collins, Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch A, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-7848 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0123 New Information Collection: Study on the Impact of Companies' Compliance with the Requirements Implementing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; OMB Control No. 3235-xxxx; SEC File No. 270-575 Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for approval. The Commission staff plans to undertake a study that will involve collecting and analyzing empirical data regarding the impact on public companies of compliance with the requirements implementing section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262). The study will consider whether recent actions by the Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board are having their intended effect of increasing efficiency and lowering compliance costs. Participation in the study will be voluntary. Participants in the study are expected to include companies subject to the reporting requirements under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), as well as financial analysts, auditors, investors and other interested parties. We plan to invite up to 10,000 respondents to participate in the study. If all of these respondents participate in the study at an average estimated 1 hour per response, the total annual burden will be 10,000 hours. In addition, we also plan to conduct a follow-up survey and in-depth interviews with up to 500 respondents, at an estimated two hours per response, for a total annual burden of approximately 1,000 hours. Therefore, the total aggregate burden associated with the study is an estimated 11,000 hours. 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 control number. Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. April 7, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7828 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Nos. 33-8908; 34-57638; File No. 265-24] Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Notice of Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Friday, May 2, 2008, at the Donald E. Stephens Conference Center, Room 21, 5555 N. River Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m.

(CDT)and will be open to the public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.sec.gov.* Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify a contact person listed below. The public is invited to submit written statements for the meeting. The agenda for the meeting includes hearing oral testimony from panel participants regarding the Advisory Committee's developed proposals and conceptual approaches, as presented in the Advisory Committee's progress report dated February 14, 2008 ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2008/33-8896.pdf),* related to substantive complexity and the standards-setting process; consideration of comment letters received by the Advisory Committee; consideration of updates from subcommittees of the Advisory Committee; and discussion of next steps and planning for the next meeting. DATES: Written statements should be received on or before April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet submission form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail message to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number 265-24 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper statements in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. 265-24. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your statements more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission staff will post all statements on the Advisory Committee's Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/acifr.shtml* ). Statements also will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Kroeker, Deputy Chief Accountant, or Shelly C. Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at

(202)551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, 10(a), James L. Kroeker, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved publication of this notice. Dated: April 9, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7893 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57631; File No. SR-Amex-2008-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Amend the Eligibility Criteria for Components of an Index or Portfolio Underlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares April 8, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 25, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On April 1, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI (Portfolio Depositary Receipts or “PDRs”) and Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI (Index Fund Shares or “IFSs,” and together with PDRs, collectively, “ETFs”) to exclude ETFs and securities defined as Managed Fund Shares (Amex Rule 1000B), Trust Issued Receipts (Amex Rule 1200), Commodity-Based Trust Shares (Amex Rule 1200A), Currency Trust Shares (Amex Rule 1200B), Partnership Units (Amex Rule 1500), and Paired Trust Shares (Amex Rule 1600) (together with ETFs, collectively, “Derivative Securities Products”) when applying certain quantitative listing requirements of Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.amex.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enable the listing and trading of ETFs that are linked to, or based on, Derivative Securities Products pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 3 To this end, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI. 3 Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) (17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1)), if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)), the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). Amex Rules 1000-AEMI and 1000A-AEMI provide that the Exchange may approve a series of PDRs and IFSs, respectively, for listing and/or trading (including pursuant to unlisted trading privileges) pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, 4 if such series satisfies the criteria set forth in such Rules. In this proposal, the Exchange seeks to exclude Derivative Securities Products when applying certain quantitative listing requirements of Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI relating to the listing of PDRs and IFSs, respectively, based on a U.S. index or portfolio or an international or global index or portfolio. 4 *See id.* With respect to Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, the Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products, as components, when applying the following existing component eligibility requirements:

(1)Component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million (Commentary .03(a)(A)(1) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(1) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI);

(2)component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares (Commentary .03(a)(A)(2) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(2) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI); and

(3)the most heavily weighted component stock must not exceed 30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks must not exceed 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio (Commentary .03(a)(A)(3) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(3) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI). Component stocks, in the aggregate, excluding Derivative Securities Products, would still be required to meet the criteria of these provisions. Thus, for example, when determining compliance with Commentaries .03(a)(A)(1) and

(2)to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentaries .02(a)(A)(1) and

(2)to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the remaining index weight, after excluding any Derivative Securities Products, would be required to have a minimum market value of at least $75 million and minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares during each of the last six months, respectively. In addition, with respect to Commentary .03(a)(A)(3) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(3) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, when determining the component weight for the most heavily weighted stock and the five most heavily weighted component stocks for an underlying index that includes a Derivative Securities Product, the weight of such Derivative Securities Products included in the underlying index or portfolio would not be considered. In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the requirements in Commentary .03(a)(A)(4) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(4) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, which provide that the underlying index or portfolio must include a minimum of 13 component stocks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if:

(1)One or more series of ETFs constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of ETFs; or

(2)one or more series of Derivative Securities Products account for 100% of the weight of the index or portfolio. Thus, for example, if the index or portfolio underlying a series of ETFs includes one or more series of ETFs, or if it consists entirely of other Derivative Securities Products, then there would not be required to be any minimum number of component stocks ( *i.e.* , one or more components comprising the underlying index or portfolio would be acceptable). However, if the index or portfolio consists of Derivative Securities Products other than ETFs ( *e.g.* , Commodity-Based Trust Shares or Currency Trust Shares), as well as securities that are not Derivative Securities Products ( *e.g.* , common stocks), then there would have to be at least 13 components in the underlying index or portfolio. Consistent with current Commentary .03(a)(A)(5) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(A)(5) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, all securities in the index or portfolio would have to be “US Component Stocks” (as defined in Amex Rules 1000-AEMI(b)(3) and 1000A-AEMI(b)(4)) 5 listed on a national securities exchange and NMS Stocks, as defined in Rule 600 of under the Act. 6 5 “US Component Stock” is an equity security that is registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act or an American Depositary Receipt, the underlying equity security of which is registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act. *See* Amex Rules 1000-AEMI(b)(3) and 1000A-AEMI(b)(4). 6 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). With respect to Commentary .03(a)(B) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, the Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products, as components, when applying the following existing component eligibility requirements:

(1)Component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum market value of at least $100 million (Commentary .03(a)(B)(1) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(1) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI);

(2)component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum worldwide monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares (Commentary .03(a)(B)(2) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(2) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI); and

(3)the most heavily weighted component stock must not exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks must not exceed 60% of the weight of the index or portfolio (Commentary .03(a)(B)(3) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(3) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI). Thus, for example, when determining compliance with Commentaries .03(a)(B)(1) and

(2)to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentaries .02(a)(B)(1) and

(2)to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the remaining index weight, after excluding any Derivative Securities Products, would be required to have a minimum market value of at least $100 million and minimum worldwide monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares during each of the last six months, respectively. In addition, with respect to Commentary .03(a)(B)(3) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(3) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, when determining the component weight for the most heavily weighted stock and the five most heavily weighted component stocks for an underlying index that includes a Derivative Securities Product, the weight of such Derivative Securities Products included in the underlying index or portfolio would not be considered. In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the requirements in Commentary .03(a)(B)(4) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(4) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, which provide that the underlying index or portfolio must include a minimum of 20 component stocks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if:

(1)One or more series of ETFs constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of ETFs; or

(2)one or more series of Derivative Securities Products account for 100% of the weight of the index or portfolio. Thus, for example, if the index or portfolio underlying a series of ETFs includes one or more series of ETFs, or if it consists entirely of other Derivative Securities Products, then there would not be required to be any minimum number of component stocks ( *i.e.* , one or more components comprising the underlying index or portfolio would be acceptable). However, if the index or portfolio consists of Derivative Securities Products other than ETFs ( *e.g.* , Commodity-Based Trust Shares or Currency Trust Shares), as well as securities that are not Derivative Securities Products ( *e.g.* , common stocks), then there would have to be at least 20 components in the underlying index or portfolio. Consistent with current Commentary .03(a)(B)(5) to Amex Rule 1000-AEMI and Commentary .02(a)(B)(5) to Amex Rule 1000A-AEMI, each component that is a U.S. Component Stock (which would include each Derivative Securities Product) would be required to be listed on a national securities exchange and be an NMS Stock, as defined in Rule 600 under the Act, and each component that is a Non-US Component Stock (as defined in Amex Rules 1000-AEMI(b)(4) and 1000A-AEMI(b)(5)) 7 would be required to be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. 7 “Non-US Component Stock” is an equity security that is not registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act and that is issued by an entity that

(1)is not organized, domiciled, or incorporated in the United States, and

(2)is an operating company (including Real Estate Investment Trusts and income trusts, but excluding investment trusts, unit trusts, mutual funds, and derivatives). *See* Amex Rules 1000-AEMI(b)(4) and 1000A-AEMI(b)(5). The Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude Derivative Securities Products from certain index component eligibility criteria for ETFs insofar as Derivative Securities Products are themselves subject to specific quantitative listing and continued listing requirements of a national securities exchange on which such Derivative Securities Products are listed. Derivative Securities Products that are components of an index or portfolio underlying a series of ETFs would have been listed and traded on a national securities exchange pursuant to a proposed rule change approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 8 or submitted by a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 9 or would have been listed by a national securities exchange pursuant to the requirements of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 10 Finally, the Exchange notes that Derivative Securities Products are derivatively priced, and, therefore, the Exchange submits that it would not be necessary to apply the generic quantitative criteria ( *e.g.* , market capitalization, trading volume, index or portfolio component weighting) applicable to non-Derivative Securities Products ( *e.g.* , common stocks) to such products. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 *See supra* note 3. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 12 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposal will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of ETFs that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. In addition, the listing and trading criteria set forth in the proposed rules are intended to protect investors and the public interest. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange states that the proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange states that no written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2008-30 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-30. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-30 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7825 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57629; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Replace References to Certain Committees With a Reference to the Exchange April 7, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 17, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the CBOE. On April 7, 2008, CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE proposes to amend its rules to replace references to certain committees with a reference to the “Exchange.” The text of the proposed rule change is available at the CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rules to delete certain references to the appropriate Procedure, Floor Officials, appropriate Market Performance, Membership, and Product Development Committees, as well as certain general references to committees such as the “appropriate Exchange committee.” These references are being replaced with a reference to the “Exchange.” The Exchange is proposing to make these changes in order to simplify and standardize its delegations of authority with respect to these Exchange committees. Under CBOE's organizational structure, Exchange committees can derive their authority in one of two ways. In addition to any powers and duties specifically granted in CBOE's Constitution or Rules, each committee has such other powers and duties as may be delegated to it by the Board of Directors (“Board”). 3 Thus, in some instances CBOE's Constitution or Rules specifically reference a particular committee or “appropriate Exchange committee.” In other instances, the Board separately delegates a particular authority to a committee. Because the authority exercised by committees may be delegated by the Board, the Exchange believes that referencing these committees in the rule text is not necessary. Instead, the Exchange believes a better approach than making a specific reference to the above-listed committees or a general reference to the “appropriate Exchange committee” in the rule text is to simply reference the “Exchange.” In this way, the Exchange will have the flexibility to determine who will perform which authorities under the rules, which might include Exchange officials or the Board determining to delegate certain authorities to an appropriate Exchange committee. 4 In addition, excluding these committee references and referencing the “Exchange” will be more efficient from an administrative perspective because the Exchange will not have to make a rule change merely, for instance, to accommodate a change in the title of a committee or to accommodate the reassignment of an authority to another committee. 5 3 *See* Rule 2.1(d). 4 As indicated above, Exchange committees only have authorities to the extent specifically granted in CBOE's Constitution or Rules or by Board delegation. The Board may also exercise authorities of the “Exchange” under CBOE's Constitution and Rules. In addition, authorities of the “Exchange” may be performed by other Exchange officials. For example, the Exchange's Chief Executive Officer, President or other officials or designees may have authorities of the “Exchange” as long as it is not inconsistent with CBOE's Constitution or Rules or any Board directive. 5 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53537 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15778 (March 29, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-15) (deleting from the CBOE Rules any specific references to the Clearing Procedures Committee, Exemption Committee, Modified Trading System Appointments Committee, appropriate Screen-Based Trading Committee, appropriate SBT DPM Appointments Committee, and Special Product Assignment Committee because the Exchange determined to eliminate these committees and reassign their respective authorities to other committees and/or to Exchange staff) and 39479 (December 22, 1997), 62 FR 68326 (December 31, 1997) (SR-CBOE-97-61) (deleting from the CBOE Rules any specific references to, and adding `appropriate' to all references that related to, a particular Floor Procedure Committee or Market Performance Committee to accommodate the creation of two new committees, the Index Floor Procedure Committee and the Index Market Performance Committee, which among other things replaced the OEX Floor Procedure Committee and the OEX Market Performance Committee, respectively). In addition, as discussed below, various amendments that accommodate the above-described changes and simplify the rule text are also being made. First, though specific references to the Floor Officials Committee are being removed, specific references to Floor Official duties and authorities under the rules will remain. As a result, the Exchange is proposing to define the term “Floor Official” to mean an individual appointed by the Exchange who is granted certain duties and authorities under the CBOE Rules with respect to trading issues and market actions. 6 6 *See* proposed Rule 1.1(eee). The Exchange is proposing similar changes to the definition of a “Trading Official” under its Screen-Based Trading System Rules. *See* proposed changes to Rule 40.1(g). Second, Rule 3.31, *Delegation of Authority* , will be deleted. This rule had indicated that

(i)the authority granted to the Exchange under Chapter III, *Membership* , may be exercised by the Membership Committee and/or the Membership Department and

(ii)the Membership Committee may delegate to the Membership Department any of the authority granted to the Membership Committee under the CBOE Rules. Instead of specifying these particular delegations in the rules, the Exchange will have the flexibility to delegate the applicable authorities to a designee(s). 7 7 It is CBOE's intent that any Exchange designee would be a person or persons that CBOE views as qualified to perform the particular authority granted under Chapter III. Third, the procedures contained in Rule 6.3, *Trading Halts* , currently indicate in part that any trading halt that lasts more than two consecutive business days shall be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Floor Officials Committee. Because the Floor Officials Committee will no longer be specifically referenced in the CBOE Rules, the proposed revisions to Rule 6.3 indicate that any trading halt that lasts more than two consecutive days will be reviewed on a regular basis by the Exchange. The revised language will provide the flexibility to establish an appropriate schedule for conducting such reviews that takes into account the Exchange designee that is delegated that responsibility ( *e.g.* , a committee that might have regularly scheduled meetings or Exchange staff that might that might conduct such reviews on a regular schedule). Fourth, Rules 6.45A, *Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System* , and 6.47, *Priority on Split-Price Transactions Occurring in Open Outcry* , currently contain references to the appropriate Exchange committee having authority to make certain decisions regarding all options classes or products under the committee's jurisdiction. 8 Under the proposed revisions, such decisions will now be made by the Exchange (through a designee delegated the applicable authority) on a class/product basis. 9 8 *See* paragraphs (a)(i) and

(c)of Rule 6.45A (which currently indicates in part that the “final weighting formula for equity options * * * shall be determined by the appropriate Procedure Committee and apply uniformly across all options under its jurisdiction * * *”, that the “appropriate Procedure Committee shall determine which of the preceding two entitlement formulas will be in effect for all classes under its jurisdiction”, and that the “appropriate Procedure Committee will determine the length of the “N-second group” timer provided however that the duration of the “N-second group” timer shall not exceed five seconds [and the] duration of the “N-second group” timer shall apply uniformly across all classes under the Procedure Committee's jurisdiction”); and paragraph

(b)of Rule 6.47 (which currently indicates in part that the “appropriate Exchange committee may increase the ‘minimum qualifying order size' above 100 contracts for all products under its jurisdiction”). 9 Rule 6.45A will be revised to indicate that determinations on the final weighting formula, entitlement formula, and N-second group timer will be made on a class basis (also referred to as a product-basis). *See* proposed changes to paragraphs (a)(i) and

(c)of Rule 6.45A and note 8, *supra* . These changes to Rule 6.45A are consistent with the existing rule language contained in Rule 6.45B, *Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System* . Rule 6.47 will be revised to indicate that determinations on the minimum qualifying order size will be made on a class basis. *See* proposed changes to paragraph

(b)of Rule 6.47; *supra* note 8. The Exchange notes that paragraph

(b)of Rule 8.60, *Evaluation of Trading Crowd Performance* , also contains a reference to jurisdiction that is being revised. Rule 8.60 currently indicates in part that the appropriate Market Performance Committee “may find that a Market Participant has failed to satisfy its market responsibilities if it determines from the results of the evaluation that the Market Participant is ranked one or more standard deviations from the mean score of all Market Participants within the Committee's jurisdiction, or if such a finding may reasonably be supported by any other relevant information known to the Committee.” The reference to “within the Committee's jurisdiction” will be replaced with “trading the same category of option”. *See* proposed changes to paragraph

(b)of Rule 8.60. Fifth, the procedures contained in Rules 8.16, *RAES Eligibility in Option Classes Other Than Broad-Based Indexes and Options on Exchange Traded Funds on Broad-Based Indexes* , and 24.17, *RAES Eligibility in Broad-Based Index Options* , currently indicate in part that the appropriate Market Performance Committee may exempt from certain percentage requirements with respect to trading, 10 all market maker activity in one or more option classes for certain days, and that data provided to the appropriate committee will not contain the identities of individual market-makers. Under the revised rules, the Exchange (through a designee delegated that authority) may grant the same exemptions. In addition, the revised rule will indicate that, to the extent the data is provided to an Exchange designee consisting of non-Exchange staff, the data will not contain the identities of individual market-makers. 10 *See* paragraph (a)(iii) of Rule 6.8 and paragraph (b)(vii) of Rule 24.17 for the applicable percentage requirements. Sixth, the procedures contained in Rule 16.3, *Reinstatement* , currently indicate in part that the affirmative vote of at least five members of the Membership Committee shall be required to approve an application for reinstatement. Under the revised rule, the Exchange (through a designee delegated that authority) would approve such applications. The requirement of an affirmative vote of at least five members of the Membership Committee will be deleted. The Exchange believes that this level of specificity in the rules is no longer applicable and unnecessary, and notes that at least one other exchange does not have this requirement in its rules. 11 11 *See, e.g.* , paragraph

(a)to International Securities Exchange Rule 1502. Except as described above, the Exchange notes that it is not making substantive revisions to its underlying processes as a result of this rule change. 12 The rules are simply being revised to provide more flexibility to delegate the applicable authorities, rather than including specific delegations to particular committees in the rules. It is CBOE's intent that any Exchange designee would be a person or persons that CBOE views as qualified to perform the particular authorities. 13 12 Various other non-substantive changes are also being proposed to the CBOE Rules. For example, in Rule 2.1, *Committees of the Exchange* , the heading in paragraph

(d)will be changed from “General Duties and Powers of Committees” to “Duties and Powers of Committees” and the sentence, “Each committee shall administer the provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the Exchange pertaining to matters within its jurisdiction[,]” will be deleted. This language is duplicative and unnecessary because paragraph

(d)also indicates that, “In addition to any powers and duties specifically granted in the Constitution or Rules, each committee shall have such other powers and duties as may be delegated to it by the Board of Directors.” In Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.8, *RAES Operations* , a “the” will be replaced with an “a” for consistency. In Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rules 6.75, *Discretionary Transactions* , and 7.5 *, Obligations for Fair and Orderly Market* , an unnecessary prefatory phrase “[t]he appropriate Procedure Committee has determined that * * *” is being deleted. In Rule 8.60, references to “market-maker” and “floor official” are being capitalized for consistency. 13 *See, e.g.* , note 7, *supra* . For example, currently under Rule 3.5, *Denial of and Conditions to Membership and Association* , the CBOE Membership Committee has the specific authority to deny (or condition) membership or association with a member, and any decision made by the committee may be appealed under Chapter XIX of the CBOE Rules. Under the revised Rule 3.5, the “Exchange” will have the authority to deny (or condition) membership or association with a member. The authority to make such decisions may be delegated to a designee such as Exchange staff or, by a Board delegation, a committee or Exchange staff. Any decision by the designee to deny (or condition) membership or association with another member may be appealed under Chapter XIX, which will continue to apply unchanged. 14 Thus, under the revised Rule 3.5, the procedures will remain the same. The rule is simply being revised to provide the Exchange with the flexibility to assign a designee the authority to deny (or condition) membership or association with a member, rather than referencing a particular committee. 15 14 The Exchange notes that it is not making any revisions to its disciplinary, arbitration or appeals procedures (or related Business Conduct, Arbitration and Appeals Committees) as a result of this rule change. *See* Chapter XVII, *Discipline* , XVIII, *Arbitration* , and XIX, *Hearings and Review* . Chapter XIX provides the procedure for persons aggrieved by Exchange action (including but not limited to those persons who have been denied membership, barred from being associated with a member, or prohibited or limited with respect to Exchange services, or the services of any Exchange member, taken pursuant to any contractual arrangement, the Constitution or the Rules of the Exchange (other than disciplinary action for which review is provided in Chapter XVII, action of the Arbitration Committee, and any other action that the Rules specify is not subject to appeal under Chapter XXIX) to apply for an opportunity to be heard and the complained of action reviewed. Applications for hearing and review are referred to the Appeals Committee, which appoints a hearing panel to conduct the hearing. The decision of the panel of the Appeals Committee is subject to review by the Board (or a Committee of the Board) and any Director who participated in a matter before it is appealed to the Board shall not participate in any review action by the Board concerning the matter. 15 *See also, e.g.:*

(i)Proposed changes to Rule 3.18, *Members and Associated Persons Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory Disqualification* (which currently indicates in part that the Chairperson of the Membership Committee appoints a panel composed of the Chairperson and two other members of the Membership Committee to conduct a hearing concerning the matter. The hearing panel then presents its recommended decision to the Membership Committee, who may ratify or amend the decision. The decision is then provided to the subject of the proceeding and CBOE's Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may order review of the decision. Under the proposed revisions, the Exchange (through a designee delegated that authority) will appoint a panel composed of three Exchange members to conduct a hearing concerning the matter. The hearing panel then will present its recommended decision to an Exchange designee, who may ratify or amend the decision (currently the Exchange has determined that this designee would be the Membership Committee per a Board delegation; however, the rule change will give the Exchange the flexibility to change the designee in the future). The decision will then be provided to the subject of the proceeding and the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee can order review of the decision in the same manner as applies under the Rule today);

(ii)Proposed changes to Rule 8.60 (which currently indicates in part that the appropriate Market Performance Committee (or a panel thereof) conducts formal hearings or informal meetings, and actions taken after formal hearings may be reviewed by the Board (or a panel thereof) while actions taken after an informal meeting may be appealed in accordance with Chapter XIX; under the proposed revisions, the Exchange (through a designee delegated that authority) will conduct such hearings and actions taken by the Exchange after a formal hearing may be reviewed by the Board (or a panel thereof) while actions taken by the Exchange after an informal meeting may be appealed in accordance with Chapter XIX); and

(iii)Proposed changes to Rule 24.21, *Index Crowd Space Dispute Resolution Procedures* (which currently indicates in part that the Chairman of the appropriate Procedure Committee shall select a Crowd Space Dispute Resolution Panel composed of seven members of the Exchange, two who are members of the Chairman's Procedure Committee, and two that trade in the trading station where the dispute has arisen and two that do not trade in that station (with preference given to members who serve on another Procedure Committee or Market Performance Committee), and the seventh being the Floor Officials Committee Chairman or another Floor Officials Committee member; under the proposed revisions, a designee will be appointed to perform the function of selecting the panel (referred to as the “Space Mediator”) and the panel shall consist of seven members of the Exchange, three who trade in the trading station where the dispute has arisen and three that do not trade in that station and one Floor Official designated by the Exchange.) It is CBOE's intent that any Exchange designee would be a person or persons that CBOE views as qualified to perform the particular authority granted under the rules noted above. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act, 16 in general and section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 17 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal complies with the Act because the Exchange is amending its rules to eliminate certain committee references to facilitate compliance. 16 15 U.S.C. 78f. 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2008-02 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-02. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-02 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7780 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57632; File No. SR-ISE-2008-29] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Price Improvement Mechanism April 8, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 20, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the ISE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to allow members to enter orders into the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) at a price that matches the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) when the ISE market is inferior to the NBBO. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the ISE's Web site ( *http://www.iseoptions.com* ), at the principal office of the ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Several options exchanges have adopted a fee structure in which firms receive a rebate for the execution of orders resting on the limit order book ( *i.e.* , posting liquidity) and pay a fee for the execution of orders that trade against liquidity resting on the limit order book ( *i.e.* , taking liquidity). The taker fees currently range up to $0.50 per contract, and this fee is charged without consideration of the client category, thus applying to the execution of public customer orders. In contrast, ISE does not charge a fee for the execution of public customer orders. The effective price paid by a customer who is purchasing an option can be considerably higher on an exchange that charges a taker fee. For example, a customer that enters a marketable limit order to buy 10 contracts for $0.10 will pay $100 on the ISE, whereas the cost of the same transaction will be $105 if executed on an exchange with a $.50 taker fee. This represents an effective 5% increase for the customer. Because public customer orders cannot be executed at prices that are inferior to the NBBO, members are effectively forced to pay taker fees when an exchange with a taker fee structure is at the NBBO. This is because they either route their public customer orders directly to such exchange or the taker fee is passed through when another exchange accesses the NBBO on behalf of their customer through linkage. In order to provide broker-dealers with an alternative method of achieving an execution at the NBBO for their customers without having to pay taker fees, the Exchange proposes to expand the applicability of its PIM. 3 The PIM currently allows members to enter two-sided orders for execution at a price that improves upon the NBBO. The customer side of these orders is then exposed to all market participants to give them an opportunity to participate in the trade at the proposed cross price or better. This provides an opportunity for the customer order to receive additional price improvement. The Exchanges proposes to extend the application of the PIM to permit a member to enter an order into the PIM at a price that is equal to the NBBO when the ISE's best bid or offer (“ISE BBO”) is inferior to the NBBO. This will allow members to guarantee execution of their customer orders on the ISE at a price that is at least as good as the NBBO, thus providing customers with an opportunity for price improvement over the NBBO while also allowing members to avoid paying taker fees. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50819 (December 8, 2004), 69 Fr 75093 (December 15, 2004) (approving rules implmenting the PIM). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), 4 in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Allowing members to guarantee their customers an execution at the NBBO on an exchange that does not charge a taker fee will lower the cost of trading and promote a more efficient marketplace for public customer orders. In addition, using the PIM to guarantee the price of the execution on the ISE will give public customer orders an opportunity to receive price improvement over the NBBO. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(a)By order approve such proposed rule change or

(b)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-ISE-2008-29 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-29. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-29 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7826 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57634; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-35] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Equity Index-Linked Securities April 8, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 26, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On April 4, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change, as amended, and approves the proposed rule change, as modified, on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC (also referred to as the “NYSE Arca Marketplace”), which is the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2), the Exchange's continued listing standard for equity index-linked securities (“Equity Index-Linked Securities”) to:

(i)Clarify equity index rebalancing criteria; and

(ii)amend the index rebalancing requirement for equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighed indexes. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2), the Exchange's continued listing standard for Equity Index-Linked Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to:

(i)Clarify equity index rebalancing criteria; and

(ii)amend the semiannual index rebalancing requirement for equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighted indexes. For Equity Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange proposes to remove, in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(i), the requirement that only capitalization weighted, modified capitalization weighted, and price weighted indexes be reviewed as of the first day of January and July in each year. The Exchange does not believe that it is consistent to impose specific semiannual index reviews only to capitalization weighted, modified capitalization weighted, or price weighted indexes. For Equity Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(d), which currently requires that equity indexes based upon the equal-dollar, or modified equal-dollar weighting method be rebalanced at least semiannually. The Exchange does not believe that it is consistent to impose a specific semiannual rebalancing requirement only to equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighted indexes. Instead, the Exchange proposes that all indexes be rebalanced at least annually. An index is rebalanced in accordance with its stated methodology, as determined by a third-party index sponsor. The Exchange notes that a significant number of currently existing equity indexes that utilize the equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighting methodology are rebalanced annually rather than semiannually. As the issuer of Equity Index-Linked Securities generally licenses the right to utilize the underlying index from a third-party index sponsor, it is often not within the issuer's control to have the index rebalanced more frequently. As such, it is not currently possible under Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I) to list Equity Index-Linked Securities based on such indexes. However, as these types of indexes are relatively common and detailed information concerning the procedures governing the construction of the underlying index will be available to investors either in the issuer's prospectus or on the index sponsor's Web site, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to allow investors to make their own decisions as to the sufficiency of rebalancing of an equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighted index underlying an issuance of Equity Index-Linked Securities. Amending the generic listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities would promote competition and benefit investors, issuers, and third-party index sponsors since it would allow NYSE Arca to list, without the delay associated with a stand-alone rule filing, Equity Index-Linked Securities based on a broader group of indexes. The Exchange notes that its listing standards for Investment Company Units 3 do not impose a semiannual index rebalancing requirement for equal-dollar or modified equal-dollar weighted index. 3 *See* NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(3) Commentary .01. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-35 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-35. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File number SR-NYSEArca-2008-35 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will provide for consistent criteria for the rebalancing of indexes based on different methodologies. The Commission further believes that the proposal should facilitate the listing and trading of Equity Index-Linked Securities based on indexes with different rebalancing requirements, thus benefiting investors by providing them with a wider selection of derivative products. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change would also conform index requirements for Equity Index-Linked Securities to the requirements 9 applicable to equity-based Investment Company Units. 9 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is similar to a proposal related to index rebalancing of Equity Index-Linked Securities 10 that was recently approved by the Commission and does not believe that this proposal raises any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56838 (November 26, 2007), 72 FR 67774 (November 30, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-118). 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change, as modified (SR-NYSEArca-2008-35), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 12 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-7827 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6188] Notice Convening an Accountability Review Board To Examine the Circumstances of the Death of Mr. John M. Granville and Mr. Abdelrahman Abees in Khartoum, Sudan in January 2008 Pursuant to Section 301 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended (22 U.S.C. 4831 *et seq.* ), the Secretary of State has determined that a recent attack on an official vehicle in Khartoum, Sudan involved loss of life that was at or related to a U.S. mission abroad. Therefore, the Secretary has convened an Accountability Review Board to examine the facts and the circumstances of the attacks and to report to me such findings and recommendations as it deems appropriate, in keeping with the attached mandate. The Secretary has appointed Michael W. Marine, a retired U.S. ambassador, as Chair of the Board. He will be assisted by M. Bart Flaherty, Wayne S. Rychak, Lewis R. Atherton, Michael Pastirik and by Executive Secretary to the Board, Hugo Carl Gettinger. They bring to their deliberations distinguished backgrounds in government service and/or in the private sector. The Board will submit its conclusions and recommendations to Secretary Rice within 60 days of its first meeting, unless the Chair determines a need for additional time. Appropriate action will be taken and reports submitted to Congress on any recommendations made by the Board. Anyone with information relevant to the Board's examination of these incidents should contact the Board promptly at

(202)647-5204 or send a fax to the Board at

(202)647-3282. This notice shall be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: April 7, 2008. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-7887 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-35-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6186] Determination and Waiver of Section 617(a) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, Related Programs Appropriations Act

(2008)(Division J, Pub. L. 110-161), Relating to Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by Section 617(a) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008) (Division J, Public Law 110-161) (SFOAA), Executive Order 13118 of March 31, 1999, and State Department Delegation of Authority No. 245 of April 23, 2001, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to make available funds appropriated under the heading “Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union” in Title II of the SFOAA, without regard to the restriction in that section. This determination shall be reported to the Congress promptly and published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: February 19, 2008. John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-7960 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-23-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108] National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory committee. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. DATES: The Task Force meeting is scheduled for April 29, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time. ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West Building. For Further Information or to Contact the Department Concerning the Task Force: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., or Kathleen Blank-Riether, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone:

(202)366-9342; Fax:

(202)366-7152; E-mail: *Livaughn.Chapman@dot.gov,* or *Kathleen.Blankriether@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, and the General Services Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory committees, 41 CFR Part 102-3, this notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The Meeting will be held on April 29, 2008, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West Building. DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report, entitled “Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,” issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency. To effectuate this recommendation, on January 3, 2008, the Department, consistent with the requirements of the FACA, established the National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The first meeting of the Task Force took place on February 26, 2008. The agenda topics for the April 29, 2008, meeting will include the following:

(1)A presentation by FAA's Air Traffic Control on its perspective on air traffic holds and ground delays and uncertainties in the system;

(2)a presentation on the regional airline perspective of tarmac delays;

(3)one or more presentations on recent tarmac delay events and efforts to avoid them;

(4)a briefing by the Passenger Needs Working Group, the working group that studied the common needs of significantly delayed passengers on aircraft and passengers who returned to the terminal after disembarking from such aircraft;

(5)a briefing by the Delays Causes Working Group, the working group that examined the possible causes of lengthy tarmac delays; and

(6)a discussion of whether additional working groups should be established to achieve the objectives of the Task Force and if so, what the purpose of these working groups should be. Attendance is open to the public, and time will be provided for comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the Department contact noted above ten

(10)calendar days prior to the meeting. Attendance will be necessarily limited by the size of the meeting room. Members of the public may present written comments at any time and, at the discretion of the Chairman and time permitting, oral comments at the meeting. Any oral comments permitted must be limited to agenda items and will be limited to five

(5)minutes per person. Members of the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department contact noted above via email that they wish to attend and present oral comments at least ten

(10)calendar days prior to the meeting. For this April 29, 2008, meeting, no more than one hour will be set aside for oral comments. Although written material may be filed in the docket at any time, comments regarding upcoming meeting topics should be sent to the Task Force docket

(10)calendar days prior to the meeting. Members of the public may also contact the Department contact noted above to be placed on the Task Force mailing list. Persons with a disability requiring special accommodations, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact the Department contact noted above at least seven

(7)calendar days prior to the meeting. Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and the General Service Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory committees. Issued on: April 7, 2008. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation. [FR Doc. E8-7620 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice to establish a system of records. SUMMARY: DOT intends to establish a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2008. If no comments are received, the proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the documents will be republished with changes. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Habib Azarsina, Departmental Privacy Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or *habib.azarsina@dot.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Habib Azarsina, Departmental Privacy Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-1965 or *habib.azarsina@dot.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, has been published in the **Federal Register** and is available from the above mentioned address. SYSTEM NUMBER: DOT/ALL 18. SYSTEM NAME: International Freight Data System (IFDS). SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified, sensitive SYSTEM LOCATION: Server: The server hosting the records will be housed at Integrated Communication Systems Inc., which is located at 5260 West View Drive, Frederick, Maryland 21703. Portal Location: This system of records will be accessed via a portal located at the Research and Innovative Technology Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Room #E36-120, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM OF RECORDS: This system contains information on members of the public who: • Engage in international commerce and hold licenses, registrations and/or other certifications that Federal statutes authorize the Department of Transportation to monitor and/or regulate, • Own, ship or transport international shipments of hazardous materials—whether by import, export or in-transit, • Import automobiles or automobile parts made outside of the U.S., • Serve as crew on international commercial maritime vessels, or • Ship Government Impelled Cargoes on international maritime vessels. Government Impelled Cargoes are cargo for which a Federal agency contracts directly for shipping by water or for which a Federal agency provides financing, including financing by grant, loan or loan guarantee, resulting in shipment of the cargo by water. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: In addition to transaction-level shipment and conveyance information on international freight flows into, from or transiting the U.S., the categories of records in IFDS include: Corporate and individual names and addresses (home addresses and telephone numbers are collected for those shippers and consignees who operate from home), their contact information (including telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses) and titles; commercial drivers' license numbers and issuers; electronic signatures and signers' name, title, related information and date of signature; travel document numbers and issuing countries; nationalities of commercial parties such as conveyance owners and/or operators; and commercial operators' and/or crew members' dates of birth. Social security numbers are not collected in IFDS. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 49 U.S.C. 112 (section 7301, P.L. 109-59); 19 U.S.C. 1411(d) (section 405, P.L. 109-347) PURPOSES: The U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT)has a variety of international missions that are carried out by its Operating Administrations

(OAs)and have a direct impact on the movement of international freight. The International Freight Data System

(IFDS)is an automated system that will provide participating DOT Operating Administrations

(OAs)with international commercial information to perform their enforcement, statistical, analytical, modeling and policy responsibilities. The IFDS will interface with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's

(CBP)Automated Commercial Environment

(ACE)program as well as the government-wide International Trade Data System. This will be a joint project of the following DOT OAs: Research and Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA)(IFDS system manager): the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); the Maritime Administration (MARAD); the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Access to the IFDS will be limited to the statutory authority of each DOT OA to view and use the information. The IFDS is scheduled to deploy in 2008 and 2009. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Records maintained in the IFDS will be used as follows:

(1)*RITA:* perform statistical, analytical, modeling and policy activities;

(2)*FAA:* provide support for oversight of international hazardous materials shipments by air as well as statistical, analytical, and policy activities;

(3)*FHWA:* perform statistical, analytical, modeling, and policy activities;

(4)*FMCSA:* provide enforcement support for commercial truck and bus safety and related requirements as well as statistical, analytical, modeling, and policy activities;

(5)*MARAD:* provide enforcement of crewing and Government-Impelled Cargoes requirements as well as statistical, analytical, and policy activities;

(6)*NHTSA:* provide enforcement of auto safety for non-U.S. vehicles and parts as well as statistical, analytical, and policy activities; and

(7)*PHMSA:* provide enforcement support for international hazardous materials shipments oversight as well as statistical, analytical and policy activities.

(8)See Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: None. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Records will be stored in the International Freight Data System Database located at the System Manager site as well as at each participating DOT OA site. Any IFDS paper records will be stored at the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Room E36-120, U.S. DOT Headquarters Building. There is one database (IFDS), which contains international freight data for use by DOT and maintained by RITA. The IFDS obtains its data for the Department of Transportation via an interface with the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, International Trade Data System. RETRIEVABILITY: Records are retrievable by an individual's name and the categories listed in “Categories of records in the system.” SAFEGUARDS: Access to the system is limited to authorized users of IFDS and the system administrator managing user IDs and passwords. Physical access to the system and manual records is restricted through security guards and access badges required to enter the facility where IFDS equipment and records are located. The manual records storage location, Room E36-120, is locked when not in use. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records maintained in the IFDS cover the most recent two to three year period depending upon the participating OA's particular needs and authorities. Historical data will be archived and maintained in a secure manner in accordance with federal regulations governing electronic data records retention and disposal in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's record retention schedule. Standard Form 115 will be used to gain authority for the disposition of the records. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: FDS Program Manager, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research & Innovative Technology Administration, Department of Transportation, Room #E32-342, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether their information is contained in this system should address written inquiries to IFDS Program Manager, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research & Innovative Technology Administration, Department of Transportation, Room #E32-342, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Requests should include name, address and telephone number and describe the records you seek. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Same as “Notification procedure.” CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Same as “System Manager.” RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Information on individuals is provided to IFDS by the Department of Homeland Security through Customs and Border Protection's Automated Commercial Environment

(ACE)and the ITDS. International traders and carriers or their agents provide this information to ACE in order to facilitate Federal pre-clearance of international cargoes, including their compliance with all Federal regulations governing import into, export from or transiting of the United States and its territories. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. Habib Azarsina, Departmental Privacy Officer, DOT/OST/S-83. [FR Doc. E8-7880 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 4, 2008. The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 14, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Office of Domestic Finance *OMB Number:* 1505-0123. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Survey of Foreign-Residents' Holdings of U.S. Securities. *Description:* The survey collects information on foreign residents' holdings of U.S. securities, including selected money market instruments. The data is used in the computation of the U.S. balance of payments accounts and U.S. international investment position, in the formulation of U.S. financial and monetary policies, to satisfy 22 U.S.C. 3101, and for information on foreign portfolio investment patterns. Respondents are primarily the largest banks, securities dealers, and issuers of U.S. securities. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Reporting Burden:* 31,500 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Office of Domestic Finance,

(202)622-1276, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Rm. 5205, Washington, DC 20220. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,

(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-7832 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States Mint Notification of American Eagle 10th Anniversary Platinum Coin Set Price Increase *Summary:* The United States Mint is adjusting the price for its American Eagle 10th Anniversary Platinum Coin Set. Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(k) grant the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins, and to prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint minted last year and continues to issue 2007 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is changing the price of this coin set to reflect the increase in value of the underlying precious metal content of the coins—the result of increases in the market price of platinum. Accordingly, the United States Mint will commence selling the 2007 American Eagle 10th Anniversary Platinum Coin Set according to the following price schedule: Description Price American Eagle 10th Anniversary Platinum Coin Set $2,649.95 *For Further Information Contact:* Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Dated: April 9, 2008. Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint. [FR Doc. E8-7900 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 CORRECTIONS Ben DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP08-59-000] Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request for Permission to Withdraw Tariff Filing Correction In notice document E8-5252 beginning on page 14242 in the issue of Monday, March 17, 2008, make the following correction: On page 14242, in the third column, the docket number should read as set forth above. [FR Doc. Z8-5252 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D Ben DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—ASTM International—Standards Correction In notice document E8-6996 appearing on page 18812 in the issue of Monday, April 7, 2008, make the following correction: On page 18812, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the seventh line, “(“ASTN”)” should read “(“ASTM”)”. [FR Doc. Z8-6996 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D Ben DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cooperative Research Group on Development and Evaluation of a Gas Chromatograph Testing Protocol Correction In notice document E8-7007 appearing on page 18813 in the issue of Monday, April 7, 2008, make the following correction: On page 18813, in the first column, in the second paragraph, in the third line, “ABE Inc.” should read “ABB Inc.”. [FR Doc. Z8-7007 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Rules and Regulations Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Amendment 11; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 071130780-8013-02] RIN 0648-AU32 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Amendment 11 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing approved measures contained in Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). Amendment 11 was developed by the Council to control the capacity of the open access general category fleet. Amendment 11 establishes a new management program for the general category scallop fishery, including a limited access program with individual fishing quotas

(IFQs)for qualified general category vessels, a specific allocation for general category fisheries, and other measures to improve management of the general category scallop fishery. DATES: Effective June 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 11 that describes the action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the approved measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 11 and the FSEIS are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (Council), 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/scallamend11/.* Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this final rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone 978-281-9288, fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Prior to the implementation of Amendment 11, the general category scallop fishery was an open access fishery allowing any vessel to fish for up to 400 lb (181.4 kg) of Atlantic sea scallops (scallops), provided the vessel has been issued a general category or limited access scallop permit. This open access fishery was established in 1994 by Amendment 4 to the FMP (Amendment 4) to allow vessels fishing in non-scallop fisheries to catch scallops as incidental catch, and to allow a small-scale scallop fishery to continue outside of the limited access and effort control programs that applied to the large-scale scallop fishery. Over time, participation in the general category fishery has increased. In 1994, there were 1,992 general category permits issued. By 2005 that number had increased to 2,950. In 1994, 181 general category vessels landed scallops, while in 2005 more than 600 did. Out of concern about the level of fishing effort and harvest from the general category scallop fleet, the Council recommended that a **Federal Register** notice be published to notify the public that the Council was considering limiting entry to the general category scallop fishery as of a specified control date. NMFS subsequently established the control date of November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63341). In January 2006, the Council began the development of Amendment 11 to evaluate alternatives for a limited access program and other measures for general category vessels. The Council held 35 public meetings on Amendment 11 between January 2006 and June 2007. After considering a wide range of issues, alternatives, and public input, the Council adopted a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) for Amendment 11 on April 11, 2007. Amendment 11 was adopted by the Council on June 20, 2007. The Notice of Availability

(NOA)for Amendment 11 was published on November 30, 2007, (72 FR 67691) with a comment period ending on January 29, 2008. A proposed rule for Amendment 11 was published on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71315), with a comment period ending on January 31, 2008. On February 27, 2008, NMFS approved Amendment 11 on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 11 establishes criteria and authority for determining the percentage of scallop catch allocated to the general category fleet, and establishes the IFQ program. However, these specific allocation amounts have been developed by the Council as part of Framework 19 to the FMP (Framework 19), which will establish scallop fishery management measures for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years. Approved Measures In a comment letter on the proposed rule, the Council suggested interpretations of the Council's intent regarding some of the measures and regulations. NMFS has accepted some of the Council's interpretations and clarifications which are reflected in the descriptions of the management measures and in the regulatory text in this final rule. Responses to comments identify whether NMFS agreed or disagreed with the Council's recommendations. Changes in the descriptions of the management measures from the proposed rule's descriptions are noted below. Changes in the regulatory text from the proposed rule are noted under “Changes from Proposed Rule to Final Rule” in the preamble of this final rule. The FSEIS for Amendment 11 included a description of each of the measures approved by the Council, but the description of the measures lack the regulatory detail necessary to ensure effective implementation and administration of the approved management measures. Under its authority granted by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(d)), NMFS added regulatory provisions in the proposed rule and in this final rule to ensure that the regulations are sufficiently detailed to ensure effective implementation, administration, and enforcement of the approved measures. While most of the measures described below required such additional regulatory detail, the most prominent regulatory additions appear in the limited access permit program, IFQ transfers, transition to IFQ, and Sector provisions. Limited Access Program for the General Category Fishery Amendment 11 requires vessels to be issued a limited access general category

(LAGC)scallop permit in order to land scallops under general category rules. All general category permits are limited access, requiring that a vessel owner submit an application demonstrating that the vessel is eligible for the permit. The current general category permits (1A-non VMS, and 1B-VMS permits) are replaced with three types of LAGC scallop permits: IFQ LAGC scallop permit (IFQ scallop permit); Northern Gulf of Maine

(NGOM)LAGC scallop permit (NGOM scallop permit); and incidental catch LAGC scallop permit (Incidental scallop permit). A vessel is eligible to be issued an IFQ scallop permit if NMFS records verify that the vessel landed at least 1,000 lb (454 kg) of scallop meats in any fishing year between March 1, 2000, and November 1, 2004, and a general category scallop permit had been issued to the vessel during the fishing year in which the landings were made. The owner of a vessel who cannot qualify for an IFQ scallop permit can instead choose to apply for and be issued an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit. These permits have the same qualification requirement but have different restrictions. A vessel owner might choose the NGOM scallop permit if he or she wanted to land up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip and fish exclusively within the most Northern portion of the scallop resource. A vessel owner might choose the Incidental scallop permit if he or she wants to retain up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops per trip while fishing for other species. A vessel qualifies for the NGOM or Incidental scallop permit if it was issued a valid general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004. There are no landings eligibility criteria. The NGOM scallop permit allows the vessel to fish in the NGOM exclusively, defined as the waters north of 42°20′ N. lat. and within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area as defined in § 648.80(a)(11), and are subject to additional restrictions outlined in the description of the NGOM Scallop Management Area below. The Incidental scallop permit allows a vessel to possess and land up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops per trip in all areas and is intended to allow landing of incidental scallop catch. The Council also indicated in its description of this measure that some vessels that qualify for an IFQ scallop permit may opt for the Incidental scallop permit because it allows vessels to land an incidental catch of scallops on an unlimited number of trips. In response to the proposed rule, the Council commented that a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ permit, but for which the owner elects to be issued an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit, automatically qualifies for an NGOM scallop permit. This clarification was necessary because a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ scallop permit would not necessarily meet the requirement that it held a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004 ( *i.e.* , it could have been issued a general category only in 1 year prior to the 2004 fishing year). However, the Council intended that the NGOM and Incidental Catch scallop permits have more liberal qualification requirements, allowing a qualified IFQ scallop vessel to choose the other permit category. Initial Application for a LAGC Scallop Permit A vessel owner is required to submit an initial application for a LAGC scallop permit or confirmation of permit history

(CPH)within 90 days of the effective date of the final regulations. The Council recommended the shorter than usual application period to expedite the transition to the IFQ program. The IFQ program cannot be implemented until all IFQ permits are issued because the number of vessels and the contribution factors for all qualified IFQ scallop vessels will be used to determine each vessel's IFQ share of the TAC allocated to IFQ scallop vessels (see “IFQs for Limited Access General Category Scallop Vessels” below). Limited Access Vessel Permit Provisions Amendment 11 establishes measures to govern future transactions related to limited access vessels, such as purchases, sales, or reconstruction. These measures apply to all LAGC scallop vessels. The Council clarified that this was the Council's intent. Except as noted, the provisions in Amendment 11 are consistent with those that govern most of the other Northeast region limited access fisheries; there are some differences in the limited access program for American lobster. 1. Initial Eligibility Initial eligibility for an LAGC scallop permit must be established during the first year after the implementation of Amendment 11. A vessel owner is required to submit an application for an LAGC scallop permit or CPH no later than 90 days from effective date of this final rule. 2. Landings History Amendment 11 specifies landings and permit history criteria that a vessel must meet to qualify for LAGC permits. It also specifies that an IFQ scallop vessel will be allocated IFQ based on its best year of scallop landings and the number of fishing years it was active during the qualification period of March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004. Amendment 11 specifies that qualifying landings must be from the same scallop fishing year (March 1 through February 28/29, or through November 1, 2004, for the 2004 fishing year) that a vessel was issued a general category scallop permit during the qualification period. Therefore, this final rule requires that, for any landings to be used in determining eligibility, best year of fishing, years active, and the resulting contribution factor, the vessel must have been issued a general category scallop permit in the fishing year the landings were made. The best year of scallop landings is the scallop fishing year during the qualification period with the highest amount of scallop meats landed, provided the vessel was issued a general category scallop permit. Years active is the number of scallop fishing years during the qualification period (through November 1, 2004) that the vessel landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of scallops, provided the vessel was issued a general category scallop permit. In-shell scallop landings reported in pounds of scallops are converted to meat-weight using the formula of 8.33 lb (3.78 kg) of scallop meats for each pound of in-shell scallops, for qualification purposes. In-shell scallop landings reported in bushels of scallops are converted to meat-weight using the formula of 8 lb (3.63 kg) of scallop meats per bushel of in-shell scallops. NMFS landings data from dealer reports will be used to determine a vessel's eligibility for an IFQ scallop permit, a qualified IFQ scallop vessel's best year of scallop landings, and years active in the general category scallop fishery. The NMFS permit database shall be used to determine permit criteria eligibility for all LAGC scallop permits. Applicants are allowed to appeal the denial of an LAGC permit, or contribution factor (based on best year and years active), through the eligibility appeals process described below. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) restricts the release of confidential fishery information to anyone other than the owner of the vessel at the time the data were compiled. Due to this restriction, for qualifying vessel IFQ information, for vessels that are currently owned by someone other than the owner of the vessel that made the landings, NMFS may be restricted in the release of the contribution factor if the release of such information is inconsistent with the MSA. NMFS understands that this may add complexity to the qualification and appeals process, but will work with vessel owners to ensure fairness in the appeals process. 3. Confirmation of Permit History A person who does not currently own a fishing vessel, but who has owned a qualifying vessel that has sunk, or been destroyed, or transferred to another person, is required to apply for and receive a CPH if the fishing and permit history of such vessel has been retained lawfully by the applicant and the applicant wishes to maintain eligibility for an LAGC scallop permit. An application for a CPH to establish the initial LAGC qualification of a vessel must be made within 90 days of the effective date of the final regulations for Amendment 11. The CPH provides a benefit to a vessel owner by securing limited access eligibility through a registration system when the individual does not currently own a vessel. To be eligible to obtain a CPH, the applicant must show that the qualifying vessel meets the eligibility requirements for the applicable LAGC permit, and that all other permit restrictions described below are satisfied. Issuance of a valid CPH preserves the eligibility of the applicant to apply for an LAGC permit for a replacement vessel based on the qualifying LAGC scallop vessel's fishing and permit history at a subsequent time. A CPH must be applied for in order for the applicant to preserve the LAGC scallop permit eligibility of the qualifying vessel. IFQ would be issued for IFQ scallop vessels in CPH, and IFQ associated with a CPH can be transferred. IFQ associated with a CPH counts toward a vessel owner's overall ownership of IFQ, and is restricted under the 5-percent ownership cap. 4. Permit Transfers An LAGC scallop permit and fishery history is presumed to transfer with a vessel at the time it is bought, sold, or otherwise transferred from one owner to another, unless it is retained through a written agreement signed by both parties in the vessel sale or transfer. 5. Permit Splitting Amendment 11 includes the permit-splitting provision currently in effect for other limited access fisheries in the Northeast region for transactions occurring after the initial qualification and permit issuance period. Therefore, after the initial issuance of an LAGC scallop permit, it cannot be issued to a vessel if the vessel's permit or fishing history has been used to qualify another vessel for a limited access permit. This means all limited access permits, including LAGC scallop permits, must be transferred as a package when a vessel is replaced or sold. However, Amendment 11 explicitly states that the permit-splitting provision does not apply to the transfer/sale of general category scallop fishing history prior to the implementation of Amendment 11, if any limited access permits were issued to the subject vessel, with the exception of limited access vessels that qualify for an LAGC scallop permit. Thus, vessel owners who sold vessels with limited access permits and retained the general category scallop fishing history with the intention of qualifying a different vessel for the LAGC scallop permit are allowed to do so under Amendment 11. A vessel with an existing limited access scallop permit ( *i.e.* , full-time, part-time, or occasional) that also qualifies for an LAGC scallop permit cannot split the LAGC scallop permit or fishing history from the limited access scallop permit. 6. Qualification Restriction Except as provided under the permit splitting provision above, consistent with previous limited access programs, no more than one vessel can qualify, at any one time, for a limited access permit or CPH based on that or another vessel's fishing and permit history, unless more than one owner has independently established fishing and permit history on the vessel during the qualification period and has either retained the fishing and permit history, as specified above, or owns the vessel at the time of initial application under Amendment 11. If more than one vessel owner claimed eligibility for a limited access permit or CPH, based on a vessel's single fishing and permit history, the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator (Regional Administrator) will determine who is entitled to qualify for the permit or CPH. 7. Appeal of Permit Denial Amendment 11 specifies an appeals process for applicants who have been denied an LAGC scallop permit. Such applicants may appeal in writing to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the denial, and any such appeal must be based on the grounds that the information used by the Regional Administrator was incorrect. The appeals process allows an opportunity for a hearing before a hearing officer designated by the Regional Administrator. The owner of a vessel denied an LAGC scallop permit can fish for scallops under the applicable general category scallop regulations, provided that the denial has been appealed, the appeal is pending, and the vessel has on board a letter from the Regional Administrator authorizing the vessel to fish under the LAGC scallop permit category. The Regional Administrator shall issue such a letter for the pendency of any appeal, if requested. If the appeal is ultimately denied, the Regional Administrator shall send a notice of final denial to the vessel owner; and the authorizing letter would become invalid 5 days after receipt of the notice of denial, but no longer than 10 days after the date that the denial letter is sent. 8. Vessel Upgrades A vessel issued an LAGC scallop permit is not limited by vessel size upgrade restrictions if the owner wished to modify or replace the vessel. However, if that vessel has also been issued limited access permits under § 648.4 that have upgrade restrictions ( *i.e.* , all other limited access permits issued in accordance with § 648.4), the upgrade restrictions for that fishery shall apply to any modification or replacement, unless the permit with the restrictions were permanently relinquished as specified under “voluntary relinquishment of eligibility,” below. 9. Vessel Baselines A vessel's baseline refers to those specifications (length overall, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower) from which any future vessel size change is measured. Because there are no vessel size upgrade restrictions, a vessel issued an LAGC scallop permit does not have baseline size and horsepower specifications. However, if that vessel has also been issued limited access permits under § 648.4 that have upgrade restrictions, any size change shall be restricted by those baseline specification requirements, unless those permits were permanently relinquished as specified in “voluntary relinquishment of eligibility” below. 10. Vessel Replacements The term vessel replacement (vessel replacement), in general, refers to replacing an existing limited access vessel with another vessel. This final rule requires that the same entity must own both the LAGC scallop vessel (or fishing history) that is being replaced, and the replacement vessel. Unlimited upgrades of vessel size and horsepower through a vessel replacement is allowed, unless the vessel to be replaced is restricted on upgrades because it has been issued other limited access permits pursuant to § 648.4. 11. Ownership Cap A vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit may not be allocated more than 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the fleet of vessels issued IFQ scallop permits. In addition, an individual may not have ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the TAC allocated to the fleet of vessels issued IFQ scallop permits. The only exceptions to these ownership cap provisions are if a vessel's initial contribution factor results in the ownership of more than 2 percent of the overall TAC initially upon initial application for the IFQ scallop permit, or if the vessel owner owns more than 5 percent of the overall TAC initially upon initial application for the IFQ scallop permits. This restriction does not apply to existing limited access scallop vessels that also have been issued an IFQ scallop permit, since such vessels are already subject to the 5-percent ownership cap for limited access permits and because such vessels would not be permitted to transfer IFQ between vessels. 12. Voluntary Relinquishment of Eligibility A vessel owner can voluntarily exit the LAGC fishery by permanently relinquishing the permit. In some circumstances, doing so would allow vessel owners to choose between different permits, with different restrictions, without being bound by the more restrictive requirement (e.g., lobster permit holders may choose to relinquish their other Northeast region limited access permits to avoid being subject to the reporting requirements associated with those other permits). If a vessel's LAGC scallop permit or CPH is voluntarily relinquished to the Regional Administrator, no LAGC scallop permit can ever be reissued or renewed based on that vessel's permit and fishing history. 13. Permit Renewals and CPH Issuance A vessel owner must maintain the limited access permit status for an eligible vessel by renewing the permits on an annual basis or applying for issuance of a CPH. All LAGC scallop permits must be issued on an annual basis by the last day of the fishing year for which the permit is required, unless a CPH has been issued. However, as a condition of the permit, the vessel may not fish for, catch, possess, or land, in or from Federal or state waters, any species of fish authorized by the permit, unless and until the permit has been issued or renewed in any fishing year, or the permit either has been voluntarily relinquished or otherwise forfeited, revoked, or transferred from the vessel. A complete application for such permits must be received no later than 30 days before the last day of each fishing year. A CPH does not need to be renewed annually. Once a CPH has been issued to an individual who has retained the LAGC scallop permit and fishing history of a vessel, it remains valid until it is replaced by a vessel permit through the vessel replacement process. A vessel's LAGC scallop permit history shall be cancelled due to the failure to renew, in which case no LAGC scallop permit can ever be reissued or renewed based on that vessel's permit and fishing history. Amendment 11 establishes an IFQ cost recovery program, with the payment procedures and details to be established in Framework 19. Under the IFQ program, up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of IFQ scallop landings will be collected by NMFS to offset the cost of managing, enforcing, and implementing the IFQ program, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS will not renew an IFQ scallop permit for a subsequent fishing year for a vessel for which the owner failed to pay cost recovery fees by the specified due date. If a vessel owner fails to pay his or her cost recovery fee by the end of the fishing year for which the IFQ scallop permit has not been renewed due to failure to pay the cost recovery fee, no IFQ scallop permit could ever be reissued or renewed based on that vessel's permit and fishing history. The Council has proposed detailed cost recovery provisions as part of Framework 19 to the FMP. Limited Access Scallop Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules A vessel issued one of the existing limited access scallop permits ( *i.e.* , a full-time, part-time, or occasional scallop permit) may also be eligible to be issued a LAGC scallop permit if it meets the qualification criteria described above. Such a vessel is allowed to fish under general category regulations when not fishing under the scallop DAS or Area Access programs. Existing limited access scallop vessels were not required to be issued a general category scallop permit. Therefore, to be issued an Incidental or NGOM scallop permit, the limited access vessel must have been issued a valid limited access scallop permit as of November 1, 2004. To be issued the IFQ scallop permit, an existing limited access scallop vessel must have been issued a valid limited access scallop permit during the period March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, and must meet the landings criteria specified in “Limited Access Program for the General Category Fishery” and “Landings History” above. LAGC scallop permit eligibility established while the vessel was also a limited access scallop vessel cannot be split from the limited access vessel. Limited access scallop vessels that also qualify for an IFQ scallop permit cannot transfer IFQ. Therefore, neither the general category maximum allocation restriction nor the maximum percentage ownership restriction for general category TAC apply. The limited access general category permit and IFQ scallop permit cannot be split from the limited access scallop permit. A limited access scallop vessel that does not qualify for a LAGC scallop permit cannot fish for, possess, or retain scallops when not fishing under the scallop DAS and Area Access programs. Allocation of the Total Annual Projected Scallop Catch to the General Category Fishery Under the IFQ Program Once the IFQ program is implemented, 5 percent of the total projected annual scallop catch will be allocated to vessels with IFQ scallop permits. This will be calculated by deducting estimated catch by Incidental scallop vessels from the total projected annual scallop catch. Five percent of the resultant catch will then be allocated to the IFQ scallop fishery. IFQs for IFQ scallop vessels will be derived from the 5-percent TAC allocation. The 5-percent allocation will not apply to current limited access vessels that also have IFQ scallop permits. Limited access scallop vessels with IFQ scallop permits will be allocated 0.5 percent of the total projected annual scallop catch after deduction of incidental catch. IFQs for these vessels will be derived from the 0.5-percent TAC allocation. The remaining 94.5 percent of the total projected annual scallop catch, after deduction of incidental catch, shall be allocated for harvest by the current limited access scallop fishery. Based on a comment from the Council, NMFS has clarified that the NGOM TAC will not be deducted from the overall TACs, as was incorrectly described in the proposed rule preamble. IFQs for Limited Access General Category Scallop Vessels A vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit will be allocated a percentage of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop fishery based on the vessel's “contribution factor.” The contribution factor for each vessel will be determined by multiplying a vessel's best fishing year of landings during the March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, qualification period by an index factor based on the number of years the vessel was active in the scallop fishery during the qualification period. A vessel will be determined to have been active in the scallop fishery if it landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of scallops. Landings to determine the best year and years active must have been from November 1, 2004, or earlier during the March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, qualification period. The index factors for varying levels of participation during the qualification period are: 0.75 for 1 year; 0.875 for 2 years; 1.0 for 3 years; 1.125 for 4 years; and 1.25 for 5 years. The index factor is intended to provide more weight in calculating the allocation for vessels that participated in the general category fishery for a longer period of time. A vessel's contribution percentage will be determined by dividing its contribution factor by the sum of the contribution factors of all vessels issued a limited access general category scallop permit. A vessel's IFQ shall be determined by multiplying the TAC for IFQ scallop vessels by the vessel's contribution percentage. The IFQs will be rounded up to the nearest 10 lb (4.5 kg). IFQ will be issued to owners of CPHs, since that vessel's contribution would be included in the determination of IFQs as described below. IFQ associated with a CPH is transferable. The following is an example of how a vessel's IFQ will be determined, using hypothetical values: A vessel landed 48,550 lb (22,023 kg) of scallops in its best year, and was active in the general category scallop fishery for 5 years. The vessel's contribution factor would be equal to 60,687 lb (27,527 kg) (48,550 lb (22,023 kg) × 1.25 = 60,687 lb (27,527 kg)). In this example, the highest total scallop landings is assumed to be 3.8 million lb (1,724 mt), and the number of qualifying vessels is assumed to be 380. The sum of the contribution factors for limited access general category scallop vessels is assumed to be 4.18 million lb (1,896 mt). The contribution percentage of the above vessel would therefore be 1.45 percent (60,687 lb (27,527 kg) / 4.18 million lb (1,896 mt) = 1.45 percent). The vessel's IFQ would be the vessel's contribution percentage (1.45 percent) multiplied by the TAC allocated to all IFQ scallop vessels. Assuming a TAC equal to 2.5 million lb (1,134 mt), the vessel's IFQ would be 36,250 lb (16,443 kg) (1.45 percent × 2.5 million lb (1,134 mt) = 36,250 lb (16,443 kg)). The IFQ program cannot be implemented until all IFQ scallop permits and CPHs have been issued because the calculation of the IFQ shares requires the contribution factors for all qualified IFQ scallop vessels to be totaled. However, eligibility, best year, and the contribution factor for each vessel will be determined upon initial application for a limited access general category scallop permit. This issue is discussed under the “Measures for the Transition Period to IFQ” description below. IFQ Transfers IFQ scallop vessel and CPH owners can transfer IFQ on a temporary or permanent basis. A temporary IFQ transfer (or lease) allows one IFQ scallop vessel to combine IFQs to increase fishing opportunity for a single fishing year. A permanent IFQ transfer permanently moves the IFQ from one vessel to another. Since a permanent IFQ transfer requires the vessel to transfer the IFQ scallop permit (and any other permits) to the transferee, the transferring vessel is not eligible to enter into an agreement to transfer IFQ back to the vessel, unless the vessel replaced another IFQ scallop vessel. Each IFQ allocation must be transferred in full before it is utilized, and a vessel that uses IFQ in a fishing year cannot transfer its IFQ during that fishing year. An IFQ can be transferred only once in a fishing year. An IFQ transfer will not be approved if it would result in the receiving IFQ scallop vessel having a share of more than 2 percent of the total TAC allocation to the IFQ fishery. IFQ transfers will not be permitted for existing limited access scallop vessels that also have been issued an IFQ scallop permit. IFQ Cost Recovery The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any Limited Access Privilege Program which includes IFQ programs to include a cost recovery program, whereby NMFS would collect up to 3 percent of ex-vessel value of landed product to cover actual costs directly related to management, data collection, and enforcement of an IFQ program. The authority and procedures for collection of cost recovery fees are established in this rule. Further details of the cost recovery program have been proposed in Framework 19, in which TACs would be established for LAGC scallop vessels. The proposed rule for Amendment 11 specified that the cost recovery fee for an IFQ that was temporarily transferred to another IFQ scallop vessel would be the responsibility of the owner of the transferring IFQ scallop vessel, not the owner of the receiving IFQ scallop vessel. However, in developing the actual IFQ cost recovery provisions in Framework 19, NMFS has determined that both vessel owners involved in IFQ transfers may be held responsible for non-payment of cost recovery fees. Therefore, this final rule clarifies that the transferor and transferee would be held jointly and severally responsible for non-payment of the cost recovery fee. Measures for the Transition Period to IFQ Amendment 11 recognizes that it will take 12 to 24 months, or longer, to determine the universe of qualified vessels that would be issued an IFQ scallop permit. The time is necessary to accommodate applicants who pursue permits through the appeals process. As a result, it will not be possible to implement an IFQ program at the same time that NMFS is in the process of determining eligibility and contribution factors. Recognizing the timing issue, Amendment 11 specifies measures for a transition period. During the transition period, the general category scallop fishery will be allocated 10 percent of the total projected scallop catch. The resulting TAC will be divided by quarter (Q1: March through May; Q2: June through August; Q3: September through November; Q4: December through February). Framework 19 proposes the percentage allocation of the TAC for each quarter. Vessels that qualify for an IFQ scallop permit and vessels under appeal for an IFQ scallop permit will be authorized to fish for scallops, subject to the quarterly TAC, with all landings counted toward the TAC. When the TAC is projected to be attained, the general category fishery will close for the remainder of the quarter. Any underage or overage of the first quarter will be applied to the third quarter, and any underage or overage of the second and/or third quarter will be applied to the fourth quarter. The quarterly TACs for the 2008 fishing year, beginning March 1, 2008, will be specified in Framework 19. A quarterly TAC is proposed rather than an annual TAC due to concerns about derby fishing. This quarterly distribution of TAC is intended to reduce the negative effects of a race to take the TAC. The 10-percent allocation will result in a TAC that is intended to be consistent with recent projections for scallop mortality from the general category fishery and will account for additional effort expected from vessels under the appeals process. Although there appears to be some confusion based on the comment from the Council about the level of scallop TAC to be allocated to the general category scallop fishery in the unlikely event that the IFQ program is not implemented by the start of the 2010 fishing year, Amendment 11 clearly states that the level should be 10 percent for the entire transition period, without regard to how long it takes. Therefore, NMFS has specified in this final rule that the 10-percent allocation of TAC to the general category scallop fishery, divided by quarter, would continue beyond the 2009 fishing year if the IFQ program cannot be implemented. Mechanism To Allow Voluntary Sectors in the General Category Fishery Amendment 11 includes a mechanism to allow the owners of IFQ scallop vessels to form voluntary sectors that could manage their own fishing activity as a group. This rule outlines the procedures that must be used to form a sector, and the sector program requirements. The sector provisions include: Restrictions on participation; definition and requirements for operations plans; specifications for the review, approval, and revocation process; allocation of TAC to sectors; sector share determination; restrictions on sector membership changes; restrictions on interactions between sectors; monitoring and enforcement provisions for sectors; a prohibition on trading of allocation between sectors; restrictions on vessel movement between sectors; and a 20-percent maximum total allocation for a single sector. The 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit is maintained for vessels in a sector. The formation of sectors is intended to provide greater flexibility for participants and create outcomes that are more socially and economically relevant for fishing groups within the biological limitations of the fishery. The 20-percent cap on a sector's share of the IFQ is intended to prevent one sector from controlling an excessive percentage of the general category allocation. Unlike the sector program for the Northeast multispecies fishery, Amendment 11 does not allow sectors to be exempt from any scallop regulations, except that participating vessels would not be restricted by their IFQs. Amendment 11 specified the sector provisions but omitted some of the details necessary for implementation of sector provisions. Under its authority granted by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), NMFS has included regulations in the Sector provisions in § 648.63 that are necessary to ensure effective implementation and administration of the Sector provisions, and to ensure consistency with some of the Sector provisions for the NE Multispecies FMP. NGOM Scallop Management Area The NGOM scallop management area is defined as waters north of 42°20′ N. lat. and within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area specified in § 648.80(a)(11). The proposed rule for Amendment 11 specified that the NGOM Scallop Management Area was all areas north of 42°20′ N. lat., but the Council commented that Amendment 11 specifies that the area is confined within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area as well. The NGOM scallop management area is managed separately, because the Council clarified that the fishery there has unique characteristics. The abundance of scallops in the NGOM fluctuates more widely, supporting sporadic fisheries, and scallops are confined to small “patchy” areas throughout the area. There are times and areas within the NGOM that have sufficient abundance of scallops in small areas to support a substantial fishery and other times and areas that do not. The NGOM scallop management area measures establish scallop fishing controls appropriate for the fishery while protecting the resource in the area from overharvest, if and when scallops are present in the area. Measures include the separate NGOM general category scallop permit and qualification criteria; a TAC based on historical landings from Federal waters in the NGOM; a possession limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) of scallops per trip, with one trip per calendar day allowed; a provision that an IFQ vessel fishing in the NGOM scallop management area shall have scallop landings deducted from its IFQ and the NGOM scallop management area TAC; and a prohibition on possession of scallops by any vessel, once the NGOM scallop management area TAC is harvested. Amendment 11 does not include specific restrictions for vessels fishing under scallop DAS in the NGOM, except that such vessels cannot continue fishing in the NGOM once the TAC for the area has been reached. Monitoring All LAGC scallop vessels are required to install and operate a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Operators of IFQ and NGOM scallop vessels are required to declare a general category trip or other fishing activity code, as appropriate. In addition, IFQ and NGOM scallop vessels are required to report scallop landings through VMS. This provision improves monitoring of the IFQ program by requiring vessels to report their catch, approximate time of landing, and port of landing before crossing the VMS demarcation line in order to enhance enforcement of the IFQ program and NGOM scallop fishery. The report submitted through VMS includes the vessel trip report

(VTR)serial number, amount of scallops on-board, the port of landing, and the approximate time of arrival in port, and any other information relevant to a general category trip as required by the Regional Administrator. This monitoring requirement enables NMFS to monitor the TAC and IFQs on a more real-time basis. Change Issuance Date of General Category Permit The issuance date of general category permits is changed from May 1 to March 1 of each year to be consistent with the scallop fishing year. Synchronizing the issuance of general category scallop permits with the scallop fishing year makes this permit consistent with the existing limited access scallop permit issuance date. Other Measures This action clarifies that vessels that are fishing under a Northeast multispecies or monkfish DAS are not restricted to the 144-ft (43.9-m) net sweep restriction at § 648.52 that currently specifies that a vessel using a net with a sweep greater than 144 ft (43.9 m) cannot fish for, possess, retain, or land more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops. The Council recommended this change because the 144-ft (43.9-m) restriction was not intended to apply to vessels fishing for other species that would have an incidental catch of scallops, provided the vessel is issued the appropriate LAGC scallop permit. This action allows an IFQ scallop vessel to possess up to 100 bu (35.2 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line only. Once shoreward of the VMS demarcation line, a vessel could possess only 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops. This measure is included because scallop vessel owners and operators testified that it often takes more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops to yield 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallop meats. NMFS noted in the proposed rule that similar increases were not specified by the Council for the NGOM possession limits of 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.8 hL) in-shell scallops, or the 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops. However, given the rationale for the increased possession limit, NMFS noted that would be inconsistent to apply the increased possession limit for only one LAGC scallop permit category or declared fishing activity. Under its authority granted by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(d)), NMFS specified that vessels fishing for scallops up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) or 25 bu (8.8 hL), or up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) or 5 bu (1.76 hL), could possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) or 10 bu (3.52 hL), respectively, seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line. The Council reviewed this issue in the proposed rule and concluded that NMFS's interpretation was correct. Finally, this final rule clarifies the ownership cap restriction on current limited access vessels specified at § 648.4(a)(2)(i)(M). The ownership cap restriction was implemented through Amendment 4 (59 FR 2757, January 19, 1994). Currently, the regulation states that an individual may not own, or have an ownership interest in, more than 5 percent of limited access scallop vessels. The provision in Amendment 4 is as follows: “No entity or individual may have ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the total number of scallop permits issued at implementation and through the appeals process.” However, the regulations were not clear whether this cap applies to CPHs. Provisions for CPH were implemented in 1995 (60 FR 62224, December 5, 1995), after the 5-percent cap provision in Amendment 4 was implemented. The regulations did not mention CPHs, which represent sunken or destroyed vessels, or vessels that were sold without fishing and permit history, that are eligible for limited access scallop permits. In terms of future ownership, a CPH is equivalent to a limited access permit. Since it is clear that the Council intended the ownership cap to restrict an owner to having an ownership interest in no more than 5 percent of all limited access scallop permits, this final rule clarifies that an individual cannot own more than 5 percent of the limited access permit eligibilities in the form of a limited access permit or CPH. This clarification makes the regulations consistent with the Council's original intent under Amendment 4. This issue was not recommended by the Council as part of Amendment 11. Rather, NMFS proposed the clarification in the Amendment 11 proposed rule as a regulatory amendment. No comments, other than from the Council verifying that the change is appropriate, were received on this proposed measure. Comments and Responses A total of 24 relevant comment letters were received from general category scallop vessel owners, industry representatives, and other interested public on Amendment 11 and the proposed rule. Four comments were also received from a general category vessel owner, two industry representatives, and the Council on the proposed rule after the close of the NOA comment period. All but one of these comments addressed the regulatory text included in the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule received after the close of the NOA comment period that addressed issues in Amendment 11 are reflected in the comments and responses below. The Council provided comments and recommendations on Amendment 11 based on review by the Council's Scallop Oversight Committee (Committee) and staff through a letter signed by the Executive Director of the Council. General Comments *Comment 1:* Two individuals requested an extension of the comment period on Amendment 11 and the proposed rule. *Response:* NMFS has a statutory requirement to approve, partially approve, or disapprove an amendment within 95 days from the date that the amendment has been officially transmitted to NMFS; otherwise, the amendment is automatically approved. The day by which NMFS had to make the decision for Amendment 11 was February 28, 2008. In order to ensure that NMFS considers public comments within that statutory time period, it must limit comment periods to 60 days for the amendment NOA and 45 days for the proposed rule (the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 15 to 60 days for the proposed rule comment period, but NMFS typically allows 45 days). If the comment period on the proposed rule ends after the NOA comment period, those comments received on the proposed rule but after the end of the NOA comment period may be excluded from NMFS's consideration relative to the decision on the amendment. Therefore, NMFS cannot extend the comment period on an amendment NOA, and prefers to keep the proposed rule comment period consistent with the NOA comment period. Moreover, given that Amendment 11 has been in development in the public arena by the Council for approximately 2 years, NMFS considers the public comment period to be adequate. *Comment 2:* One commenter appeared to oppose Amendment 11, but urged overall management changes to protect the oceans for future generations. The commenter stated that “* * * total take should be banned * * *” and that “* * * a moratorium on all catch of this should be in effect for 5 years for species regeneration * * *.” The same individual commented that the total overall quota should be cut by 50 percent this year, and by 10 percent each year thereafter, to let all species recover. The commenter provided no additional details or suggestions on the relevance of the comments to Amendment 11. *Response:* NMFS approved Amendment 11 because it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and promotes a sustainable scallop fishery. Banning or reducing scallop catch as suggested by the commenter would be inconsistent with NMFS's responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. *Comment 3:* One individual addressed several issues relative to the historical development of the general category fishery and the differences between the limited access and general category fleets. Another commenter stated that the continuation of a directed, full-time general category fishery is not consistent with the original intent of the general category fleet as a part-time fishery for vessels that did not qualify for, or did not want to participate in, the limited access scallop permits in 1994. *Response:* The Council recognized more recent developments in the general category fishery, which resulted in the development of Amendment 11. The general category fishery has changed since its inception in 1994, and the Council considered the recent growth in the general category scallop fishery after the control date to be its primary concern, regardless of whether the fishery was historically a directed scallop fishery or not. Amendment 4 to the FMP did not guarantee that general category scallop vessels would be able to continue fishing without controls on the number of overall participants. Without specific restrictions against it in any FMP action, including and since Amendment 4, the general category scallop fishery was allowed to expand beyond what some believe was the original intent of Amendment 4. Amendment 11 recognizes the expansion while providing general category fishery participants that developed a directed fishery the ability to continue fishing at levels consistent with their recent participation. Amendment 11 also prevents future expansion of the fishery. *Comment 4:* Several commenters stated that some parties involved in the development of Amendment 11 made biased decisions based on personal gain or agenda. *Response:* There is no evidence to suggest bias of various participants in the development of Amendment 11. The Council's decisions were based on numerous meetings open to the public and on information, comments, and input provided by the public. *Comment 5:* Several individuals urged no action on Amendment 11. *Response:* The analysis supporting Amendment 11 demonstrates that uncontrolled entry and effort levels in the general category fishery cannot continue. Maintaining a large number of general category vessels would continue to allow catch levels by this component of the fishery to expand and compromise the ability to effectively manage the scallop fishery overall. Uncontrolled, the general category fishery could contribute to excess fishing mortality on the scallop resource. Although one of the most difficult management programs to implement due to the level of controversy, limited access and the associated measures in Amendment 11 are necessary to ensure a sustainable scallop fishery. Furthermore, the Council could not accurately establish catch limits in the future, now a requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, without controls on the level of catch and effort in this segment of the fishery. The impacts of Amendment 11 are largely social and economic and will be positive in the long term. The measures will have direct negative economic impacts on vessel owners that do not have a qualifying vessel or that have fished more intensely recently than during the qualifying time period. However, as more fully discussed below, a control date announcing the possibility of a limited access program was published on November 1, 2004. The control date's purpose was to provide fishers with advance notice that they may not qualify for entry into, or full participation in, the general category scallop fishery. The intent of the control date was to deter individuals from unduly investing in or relying on this fishery without full and fair warning of the consequences of future limitation on access to the fishery. The social and economic impacts on qualified vessels and all of the fishery participants will be positive over time as the general category fishery is better integrated into the management program of the FMP, which strives to maximize yields through Area Rotation Program, effort controls, and restrictions on the general category fleet. Although limited access is one of the most controversial management programs to implement, limited access and the associated measures in Amendment 11 are necessary to ensure a sustainable scallop fishery. *Comment 6:* Several commenters stated that Amendment 11 will eliminate the small vessels in the fishery and allow large vessels and large fishing operations to continue. Commenters urged NMFS to allow both small and large vessel operations to continue in the scallop fishery. One commenter believes that Amendment 11 will do irreparable harm to several small fishing businesses that do not deserve to be closed out and believes that many provisions in Amendment 11 may be inconsistent with Federal laws mandating equal treatment of permit holders. *Response:* The source of concern that small vessels will be eliminated is not clear. The Council recognized this potential impact, particularly with an IFQ fishery, and designed Amendment 11 consistent with its vision to “* * * maintain a fleet made up of relatively small vessels, with possession limits to maintain the historical character of the fleet * * *.” To achieve this, Amendment 11 includes provisions to promote the continued operations of small operations. A vessel may only be allocated up to 2 percent of the TAC allocated to all IFQ vessels combined, and an individual may own only up to 5 percent of the TAC allocated to all IFQ vessels. The 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit also remains under Amendment 11. These factors should ensure only minimal shifting to large-scale operations and that the small-vessel character of the fleet is maintained. While some consolidation is possible through the IFQ transfer program, it is unlikely, with the percentage allocation limits, that the fishery will evolve into a large vessel or large-scale operations fishery. Based on these analyses, NMFS determined that Amendment 11 is consistent with all National Standards, including National Standard 4 (which requires management measures to be fair and equitable, but which recognizes that fishing privileges may need to be allocated among fishermen), and National Standard 8 (requiring management measures to minimize adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable, on fishing communities). *Comment 7:* An individual representing fishing vessel owners from New Jersey commented on behalf of the fishermen that they are supportive of the proposed amendment and options implementing a limited access program with IFQs, in trips or pounds, based on a vessel's landings in its best year from 2000 to 2004. The group of fishermen supported measures in Amendment 11, except that they would prefer a qualification landings criterion of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), rather than 1,000 lb (453.6 kg), because it would allow the IFQs to be better distributed among a smaller number of vessels. The comment urged NMFS to implement IFQs as soon as possible and provided suggestions on how appeals could be handled to expedite the process during the transition period. Other suggestions on alternatives were also provided in the comment letter. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the comments supporting Amendment 11 measures and approved Amendment 11. However, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot implement substantial measures that were not adopted by the Council or that are inconsistent with Amendment 11. NMFS may only approve, disapprove, or partially approve an amendment submitted by the Council. NMFS will ensure that the IFQ program is implemented as soon as possible. NMFS intends that the IFQ program will be implemented on March 1, 2009, as intended in Amendment 11. *Comment 8:* One individual commented that some scallop permit holders are not aware of how Amendment 11 will impact them. *Response:* Amendment 11 was developed over the course of approximately 2 years through a public process, including 35 meetings open to the public. The Council's development was well publicized by the Council and general and industry-focused media. Therefore, it is not clear how any individual with a stake in the fishery could have been completely unaware of Amendment 11 and its impacts. Once adopted by the Council, NMFS published a proposed rule and made the FSEIS available for public review. The FSEIS described and analyzed the impacts of all of the measures and alternatives and has been available in its final form since November 2007. In such a highly regulated fishery, it is a vessel owner's responsibility to understand current and upcoming regulations and the impacts that the proposed regulations may have on the vessel's ability to continue fishing. *Comment 9:* One individual commented that Amendment 11 does not address problems that it will create in terms of loss of jobs. *Response:* NMFS acknowledges that Amendment 11 will have some negative impacts, particularly on owners of vessels that do not qualify for the limited access general category scallop permit. However, NMFS concluded that the limited access program, including the use of the November 1, 2004, control date as a cutoff for eligibility, is a necessary component of a comprehensive management approach to control capacity and fishing mortality in the general category scallop fishery. NMFS considered all of the impacts relative to the sustainability of the scallop fishery and the FMP's objective to maximize scallop yield, as well as the impacts on fishery participants. The analysis supporting Amendment 11 demonstrates that uncontrolled entry and effort levels in the general category fishery cannot continue. Without controls on access to the fishery, a large number of vessels would continue to exceed estimated catch levels and compromise our ability to effectively manage the scallop fishery overall. Also, without the constraints in Amendment 11, the general category fishery could contribute to excess fishing mortality on the scallop resource. Amendment 11 concludes that the long-term economic and social impacts would be negative if open access continues in the general category fishery. Based on these analyses, NMFS determined that Amendment 11 is consistent with National Standard 4, regarding fairness and equity, and National Standard 8, requiring measures to minimize adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, on fishing communities. *Comment 10:* One individual commented that the general category fishery has less environmental impact on the ocean than the limited access component of the fishery and that Amendment 11 is therefore not necessary. *Response:* An FSEIS, describing and analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed and alternative measures, was completed for this action. Although reduced fishing time associated with the relatively low 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit has less environmental impact compared to higher catches associated with DAS vessels, the general category fishery as a whole contributes to the environmental impacts of the fishery, both in terms of effects on essential fish habitat

(EFH)and bycatch. While it may be true that a general category vessel may not have as much impact on the environment as a DAS vessel, the commenter's argument is not valid in the context of Amendment 11. The effects of Amendment 11 are cumulative, in particular if participation and effort expand under an open access fishery. *Comment 11:* One individual commented that analyses in Amendment 11 are flawed; specifically those that conclude that general category vessels are less efficient and can fish more days per year than limited access vessels, that Amendment 11 would provide benefits to the nation, and positive impacts on general category vessels overall. *Response:* Amendment 11 includes thorough descriptions of the scallop fishery and participating vessels, and analyses of the impacts. Analytical models predict the economic benefits and costs of all of the alternatives considered in Amendment 11. The analyses and models are based on information gathered throughout the development of Amendment 11. These analyses were revised and perfected throughout the development process and were available for public review during the public meetings held on Amendment 11. *Comment 12:* One commenter stated that controls on the general category fishery were considered by the Council initially out of concern over a large increase in active vessels, but not as a result of overfishing caused by the general category fleet. *Response:* The relatively rapid and large increase in the size of the active general category fleet concerned both NMFS and the Council and resulted in the development of Amendment 11. The reason that such an increase was a concern is that the level of general category fishing continually exceeded the estimated level of fishing that was incorporated into annual management measures that were designed to achieve target fishing mortality rates. By exceeding the estimated catch, the unconstrained general category fishery was a threat to meeting the fishing mortality targets and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to prevent overfishing. Therefore, while overfishing may not have been caused only by the general category fleet, the unconstrained expansion and effort in the fishery, combined with full utilization of effort and trips by the limited access fleet, contributed to overfishing in the years when overfishing was occurring. *Comment 13:* One individual stated that Amendment 11 allows an inequity to continue by maintaining more restrictive gear size restrictions in the Southern New England (SNE), Gulf of Maine, and Great South Channel sea scallop exemption areas that do not apply west of 72°20′ N. lat. In addition, the commenter stated that there are differences in bycatch in these areas that were not addressed in Amendment 11. The commenter believes that the perceived inequity will do serious harm to many vessels in the northern half of the general category scallop fishery. *Response:* The scallop dredge exemption areas referenced in the comment have been implemented under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NE Multispecies FMP) to ensure that bycatch of regulated multispecies in the scallop dredge fishery does not compromise rebuilding efforts in the NE Multispecies FMP. Other than the dredge size restriction in the NGOM Scallop Management Area, Amendment 11 does not have different gear restrictions for different areas. However, Amendment 11 does recognize that the NE Multispecies FMP has restricted when and where general category scallop vessels can fish in terms of the description of the fishery and by incorporating data from the fishery overall. Nevertheless, modifying gear restrictions that have been implemented under the NE Multispecies FMP is outside of the scope of Amendment 11. *Comment 14:* Several comments suggested that Amendment 11 is not necessary because the scallop resource is in good condition. Many references were made to the 45th Stock Assessment Workshop and Stock Assessment Review Committee report (June 2007) (SAW 45), which concluded that the scallop fishery was not overfished in 2006 and overfishing was not occurring that year. Commenters stated that, based on the conclusions of SAW 45, the measures in Amendment 11 are not necessary because the general category fishery is not causing overfishing. One individual commented that, with general category landings only equal to about 12 percent of the catch, the adverse impacts of these vessels are unclear. *Response:* Amendment 11 does not state that the general category fishery caused overfishing historically. Until Amendment 11, an estimated amount of fishing effort and fishing mortality from the general category fleet was calculated into estimated catch levels and effort allocations for the limited access scallop fleet. Amendment 11 recognizes that, without controls on the number of participants, the general category fleet can expand, especially when the resource conditions are very good. In these instances, the effort and catch in the general category fishery would likely be underestimated and could contribute to overfishing if combined with full utilization of limited access effort. Other types of controls, such as an overall TAC, were considered in Amendment 11 and prior FMP actions (Framework 18 and Amendment 10, specifically), but rejected because, without a limit on the number of participants, the general category fleet would have the capacity to rapidly harvest the TAC. This would not maximize yield, would promote derby and unsafe fishing conditions, and would be inconsistent with the FMP. *Comment 15:* Several individuals commented that general category vessel caught scallops are fresher and are more in demand than scallops from limited access boats that are at sea for several days at a time. Commenters were concerned that Amendment 11 would eliminate this higher quality product from the markets. *Response:* The FMP does not manage the scallop resource relative to condition of the scallops for sale to the seafood market. While other Federal programs are focused on ensuring seafood quality, the role of the FMP is to maximize yield from the resource while maintaining a sustainable fishery. Landings of scallops from both the limited access and general category fleets command a high market price, and high product quality is sought in all markets. The relative quality of the landings between the general category and limited access fleets is not a factor in the decision on Amendment 11. *Comment 16:* One commenter stated that scallop trip boats have control over the scallop fishery, which creates hardship on general category scallop vessel owners and families who depend on this for their livelihood. *Response:* It is not clear from the comment how the limited access fleet and fishery creates hardships on the general category fleet and the vessel owners' families. Since the implementation of limited access in 1994, vessels with limited access scallop permits have historically landed as much as 98 percent of the scallop catch, and about 85 percent of the catch, more recently. The limited access scallop fleet, therefore, does control, and has the most impact on, many aspects of the fishery, including market price, fishing mortality, and overall impacts. However, the general category fishery is an important component of the scallop fishery that contributes to overall fishing mortality and conditions in the fishery that the Council and NMFS must address. Amendment 11 achieves this goal, while allowing both the limited access and general category fleets to harvest the portion of the catch that reflects historical average shares (with a slight increase in the general category share and decrease in average limited access share). *Comment 17:* One individual commented that flexibility in fishing practices is necessary for small vessel owners to continue to make a living fishing. The commenter stated that, if a fishery becomes difficult or impossible to pursue, the small vessel must shift to another fishery, but that Amendment 11 would take away the opportunity to shift between fisheries. *Response:* NMFS must manage the scallop fishery to ensure that the fishery remains sustainable. While NMFS understands that fishing opportunities are becoming more limited, it cannot compromise the sustainability of one fishery in order to allow vessel owners to enter another fishery. Control Date and Limited Access *Comment 18:* Several commenters supported the inclusion of the control date as a qualification criterion for the general category fishery. *Response:* NMFS has approved the limited access program based on the November 1, 2004, control date. *Comment 19:* Two individuals commented that, because they were not aware of the November 1, 2004, control date, they purchased vessels and/or scallop fishing equipment, investing substantial amounts of money into the fishery. These comments indicated that NMFS's Federal fishery permit application packages should have included information about the control date to warn applicants. They expressed concern that Amendment 11 would eliminate them from the fishery because they entered after the control date and asked that NMFS not use the control date or qualification criteria to qualify vessels. *Response:* Not including the control date information on permit application packages does not invalidate the control date, nor does it warrant expansion of the limited access qualification criteria to include the period after the control date. The control date was published in the **Federal Register** on November 1, 2004, announced to all permit holders, and posted on the NMFS Northeast Region's Web site. It was also announced and discussed in various fisheries publications throughout the region (e.g., Commercial Fisheries News and National Fisherman, two of the most widely known publications for fisheries in the region and nationwide). Individuals that are engaged in a Federal fishery should be aware of the highly regulated nature of the industry. While there is no legal requirement to establish a control date, the control date's purpose was to provide fishers with advance notice that they may not qualify for entry into, or full participation in, the general category scallop fishery, with the intent that individuals would not unduly invest in or rely on this fishing without full and fair warning of the consequences of a limited access fishery. Based on the increase in catch and vessels demonstrated in the Amendment 11 FSEIS, it appears that even the period after the control date was viewed as an opportunity to fish for scallops and accrue income, even if temporary. Despite their knowledge of the control date, a large number of vessel owners entered the fishery because of the short-term profits that could be accrued. This post-control date expansion of the fishery was a primary concern of the Council during development of Amendment 11. *Comment 20:* One individual commented that NMFS should have stopped issuing general category permits in 2004. *Response:* NMFS cannot implement a moratorium on permits ( *i.e.* , a limited access permit program) without the approval of the majority of the voting members of the Council, as specified in section 304(c)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. After publication of the control date, NMFS encouraged the Council to develop management measures to control the general category fishery with consideration of the control date. *Comment 21:* One commenter suggested that vessels in the SNE region be allowed to appeal for a lower qualification amount based on investment in the fishery and some unspecified amount of landings, since an area in SNE was opened to general category scallop vessels in May 2004. The commenter stated that allowing such vessels to qualify through expanded qualification criteria or through the appeals process would not add many vessels, but could help a few vessels that depend on the scallop fishery for some of the year. The commenter believes that additional effort from these vessels would be minimal, and that the NGOM should not be treated differently than other areas. *Response:* The reasons that area-specific management and qualification criteria were not considered, with the exception of the NGOM Scallop Management Area, are described in the responses to Comments 12 and 42. *Comment 22:* A general category vessel owner expressed concern that Amendment 11 does not evaluate the number of qualifying vessels that have been inactive since the 2000 through 2004 qualification period, and does not consider the impact on the fishery or current participants. *Response:* Amendment 11 enables vessels that have not been active since the qualification period to qualify for an LAGC permit based on their fishing history prior to the control date. The Amendment 11 FSEIS fully analyzes the impacts on qualifying vessels, which the FSEIS evaluates based on fishing history during the qualification period. During NMFS's review of permit applications, some vessels may emerge that have not been recently active, but the Amendment 11 FSEIS has evaluated the impacts on the resource, the fishery, the participants, and the environment relative to the vessels that meet the qualification criteria, which includes vessels that have not been active after the control date. *Comment 23:* Two general category scallop vessel owners expressed concern about the lack of broad appeals criteria in Amendment 11 that would allow appeals outside of simple discrepancies between dealer and owner records, and to address circumstances relative to re-rigging and new construction, which would protect fishermen who were in the re-rigging process when the control date was implemented. The commenters question the exclusion of such a provision when the scallop resource is in good condition, whereas it was adopted in Amendment 4 to the FMP when the resource was in one of its worst historical conditions. The commenters raised concern about the decisions of managers involved in the process, relative to the qualification and appeals process. *Response:* This issue was discussed during the Council's development of Amendment 11 and the final Amendment 11 document did not include a re-rigging provision. The Council determined that it would be difficult to consider legitimate re-rigging for scallops, given the ease of converting a vessel to be a scallop vessel. In addition, the Council was concerned about the large influx of vessels and increased landings in 2005, which presumably included vessels that re-rigged for scalloping in 2004. The Council was concerned that, if a re-rigging clause were included, and vessel owners could show landings in 2005, it would be easy for someone to claim that they were re-rigging their vessel prior to the control date. The high landings in 2005 would result in more qualifiers and less ability to allocate IFQ consistent with qualifiers' historical levels of landings. Although re-rigging provisions were considered in other limited access programs, the Council had no obligation to include such a provision in Amendment 11, and provided a valid reason for excluding the provision in Amendment 11. *Comment 24:* An individual commented that VTR data should be able to distinguish between a vessel's state and Federal waters landings to avoid qualifying vessels, or setting their IFQs, based on landings from state waters. *Response:* It is not clear why qualifying a vessel that had state waters landings of scallops while it held a Federal general category scallop permit is inconsistent with the goals of Amendment 11. If a vessel was issued a Federal scallop permit, all landings would have been considered for determinations of fishing mortality for the scallop resource overall. *Comment 25:* One individual commented that limited access scallop vessels should not be allowed to continue to fish with a general category permit or under general category rules under Amendment 11. The commenter believes that the issue was not sufficiently considered by the Council. *Response:* Amendment 11 was the second action in which the Council considered restrictions on limited access vessels fishing under general category rules. Under Amendment 10 to the FMP, the Council recommended that the limited access fleet be prohibited from landing scallops outside of DAS or access area trips. However, the Council recommended this measure as a way to prevent overfishing despite information showing that the limited access fleet harvested less than one half of a percent of the scallop catch while fishing outside of DAS. NMFS disapproved the measure because the reason the Council provided for including the measure was not supported by the information in Amendment 10. Amendment 11 recognizes that some limited access vessels, including part-time and occasional scallop vessels, have relied on this portion of their catch historically. Therefore, maintaining the allowance for limited access vessels to harvest scallops with an LAGC scallop permit is consistent with Amendment 11's goal to preserve the historical participants in the general category scallop fishery. *Comment 26:* One individual commented that he has fished for scallops for approximately 30 years and will not qualify for an LAGC permit. The commenter expressed concern that Amendment 11 does not allow appeals based on hardships. *Response:* NMFS has opposed “hardship” grounds for appeal unless the Council recommends objective criteria for determining what qualifies as “hardship.” Without such criteria, NMFS would be forced to determine which vessels qualify and which do not by exercising its discretion in a very subjective way. This would lead to unpredictable numbers of qualifying vessels, which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to predict the efficacy of the limited access system achieving its objectives. NMFS believes that this kind of decision should be made and recommended by the Council, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because “hardship” is very difficult to define in advance and apply in one case to another, the Council has not been able, or willing, to develop such appeal criteria. Therefore, Amendment 11 contains only objective appeal criteria, allowing appeals to be based only on the grounds that the denial of the application for an LAGC scallop permit was based on incorrect information. *Comment 27:* One individual commented that the control date caused the increase in fishing effort in the general category fishery after it was announced. *Response:* NMFS and the Council acknowledge that fishing effort and participation in the general category fishery increased substantially after the control date, although one of the express purposes of the control date was to curtail speculative entry into the fishery. Based on the increase in catch and active general category vessels identified in the Amendment 11 FSEIS, it appears that even the period after the control date was viewed as an opportunity to fish for scallops and accrue income, even if temporary. Despite the knowledge of the control date, and the fair warning they received concerning the potential ineligibility to fish, a large number of vessel owners entered the fishery to reap the short-term profits that could be accrued. This post-control date expansion of the fishery was a primary concern of the Council during development of Amendment 11 and guided it, in part, in choosing management measures. Allocation between IFQ scallop vessels and limited access scallop vessels. *Comment 28:* An individual commented that Amendment 11 violates National Standard 4 because limited access vessels receive a disproportionately high allocation and that, under Amendment 11, one individual limited access boat owner will be allowed to harvest more than the entire general category fleet combined. Another commenter was concerned that the allocation of 5 percent to the general category fleet is disproportionately high. *Response:* Amendment 11 developed an allocation for the general category fleet that is consistent with the historical average catch while allowing some expansion to account for the growth in the fishery. Limited access vessels have been allocated the majority of the scallop catch through DAS and access area trips. To allocate substantially more scallop catch than the historical average to the general category fleet would not be equitable because it would not be consistent with catch in the limited access fishery or the general category fishery. Amendment 11 allocates 5 percent of the total scallop catch to general category vessels based on the historical average landings. While that average is about 2.5 percent, Amendment 11 allocates 5 percent in recognition of the changes that the general category fishery has experienced, and to allow some expansion from the historical average. This rationale is entirely consistent with National Standard 4 guidelines, which allow allocating fishing privileges to some, at the expense of others, in order to achieve biological objectives; and it is consistent with section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which allows establishment of a limited access system after taking into account such factors as historical fishing practices, present participation, and economics of the fishery. *Comment 29:* One commenter opposed an allocation of scallop TAC to the general category fishery, including the quarterly TAC during the transition period, and supported a target TAC that would be maintained through continuation of the 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit. The commenter believes that it is inappropriate to establish a TAC for the general category fishery until inequities involving vessels that fished more recently in the SNE scallop dredge exemption area. The commenter stated that the quarterly TAC during the transition would result in southern states rapidly harvesting the TAC, thus disadvantaging vessels from New England. *Response:* Without an overall TAC, the general category fishery would continue to be unconstrained. Furthermore, new Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act provisions for annual catch limits require that all catch from fisheries managed by FMPs be accounted for, and that measures to prevent exceeding that catch level must be implemented. Although these new requirements must be implemented by 2011 for the FMP, including provisions to meet the new requirement in Amendment 11 reduces the amount of issues the Council will need to consider in a future action to bring the FMP into compliance with the new requirement. *Comment 30:* One commenter opposed the cost recovery program included in Amendment 11 because the commenter does not believe that general category vessel owners should be required to pay to go to work. The commenter questioned why the general category fishery would be the first fishery that would be subject to the requirement, when fuel and insurance costs are increasing. *Response:* The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to implement a cost recovery program to collect up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of IFQ landed scallops to help recover costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the IFQ program. The cost recovery program in the IFQ general category scallop fishery will be one of the first cost recovery programs in the Northeast Region; cost recovery programs are also in development for the surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ program and a tilefish ITQ program being developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Similar programs have already been implemented in the Alaska and Southeast Regions. *Comment 31:* A general category scallop vessel owner commented that the allocation of 5 percent to the general category fleet under Amendment 11 only recognizes bycatch of scallops in other fisheries and does not represent an equitable allocation to vessels that direct fishing on scallops. *Response:* Amendment 11 analyzed a range of allocations from 2 to 11 percent of the total scallop catch and recommended a level that fairly reflects past and current landings. These values were based on historical landings by the general category fleet, and as such, included directed trips and trips on which scallops were caught as incidental catch. Although an allocation of 5 percent of the catch is less than the catch by the general category fishery in recent years, it is higher than the historical average of 2.5 percent and allows for some expansion from historical fishing levels. *Comment 32:* One individual commented that the Council should have used recent years and future projections to determine the general category share of the scallop catch, rather than basing the catch on a level consistent with a depleted resource. *Response:* Amendment 11 included a range of allocation for the general category scallop fishery, from 2 to 11 percent, based on historical amount of catch, including more recent levels. The Council determined that 5 percent would best reflect the historical level of general category catch while accommodating some expansion from the historical level. The Council determined that the higher level of catch would not reflect the historical average catch of the fishery. *Comment 33:* An industry representative commented that Amendment 11 included a 10-percent allocation to the general category fleet while the fishery is in transition to the IFQ program for the 2008 fishing year only. The industry representative commented that the Council authorized up to a 2 fishing year transitional 10-percent allocation in Amendment 11, but recommended a 1-year transitional 10-percent allocation in Framework 19. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that the transitional period was intended to be in place only for the 2008 fishing year. The Amendment 11 document is clear in Section 3.1.2.8 that the transition period, regardless of length, would have the same allocation strategy. While the Council and NMFS do not expect the IFQ program to be delayed beyond the 2009 fishing year, NMFS cannot predict the amount of time that it will actually take to determine all of the qualified IFQ scallop vessels and cannot therefore confirm that the IFQ program can be implemented in the 2010 fishing year at the latest. Because the Amendment 11 document does not specify that transition measures would be different after 2009 fishing year, the final rule specifies that the 10-percent allocation, divided into quarterly TACs, would remain in effect for the duration of the transition period, regardless of when the transition period ends. The Council's decisions relative to allocations in Framework 19 presumed that the IFQ program would be in place, but do not supersede the decision in Amendment 11 to have consistent management measures in place for the duration of the transitional period. *Comment 34:* An industry representative commented that the appeals process during the transition should not result in a delay of the IFQ program. The commenter believes that all categories of appeal should be able to be addressed relatively quickly by NMFS and questions whether the 10-percent allocation during the transition to accommodate appealing vessels is justified, since the majority of appellants would be appealing to make the minimal qualification amount of 1,000 lb (453.6 kg). *Response:* In order to allocate IFQs with the formula adopted by the Council, NMFS must know every qualifying IFQ vessel, since each vessel's IFQ is based, in part, on every other vessel's contribution to the overall scallop landings. For a period of time after implementation, NMFS will be conducting appeals and issuing new permits to vessels as appeals are approved. Appeals can be difficult to complete quickly, regardless of the reason. NMFS cannot predict how long the process of determining every qualified IFQ vessel will take. Based on previous limited access programs implemented by NMFS, it is possible that finalizing appeals will take more than 1 year. NMFS will attempt to resolve appeals in time to implement the IFQ program on March 1, 2009. The Council also provided no mechanism to allow the IFQ to be implemented mid-year. IFQ *Comment 35:* One individual commented that the IFQ referendum required under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act should have been completed, despite the fact that the Council approved Amendment 11 before the referendum was required. *Response:* The referendum was not required for any IFQ program for which final action had been taken by the Council before July 11, 2007, 6 months after the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized. This delay allowed the Council to continue considering an IFQ program, which it had included in Amendment 11 well before the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized, without having to be concerned about how a referendum would be handled and what the impacts might be. *Comment 36:* One comment, endorsed by 31 general category and limited access scallop vessel owners, stated that Amendment 11 would result in a reduction in catch of about 40 percent or more to a fisherman that is 100-percent dependent on the fishery. *Response:* A vessel's IFQ will be based on its best year during the qualification period, indexed by a factor based on the number of years the vessel was active during the qualification period. Because landings have increased in the years since the control date, including overall landings and landings by vessel, it is likely that some vessels may not be allocated catch that is consistent with recent landings. However, such reductions are necessary to ensure that all IFQ vessels are allocated a fair share of the TAC allocated to the IFQ fleet, and that TAC objectives are met. Amendment 11 fully analyzed the impacts of these measures on fishing fleets. *Comment 37:* One individual commented that IFQs are an attempt to try to hide overfishing that is presently occurring in the scallop fishery. *Response:* The measures in Amendment 11, including the limited access and IFQ programs, are intended to prevent overfishing. It is not clear why an IFQ program would “hide” overfishing. *Comment 38:* One commenter preferred that IFQ could be stacked on a vessel up to 2.5 percent of the TAC, rather than the 2 percent proposed. The commenter stated that allowing 2.5 percent of the TAC to be combined on one vessel would make the general category fishery more efficient, more manageable, and more sustainable, and would result in fewer vessels in the fishery, less paperwork, and would make the fishery more fuel efficient. The comment stated that there should not be a limit on the number of permits that can be stacked to achieve the 2.5-percent limit in order to allow fishermen that depend on the fishery to achieve a higher share or stake in the fishery if they decide to. The commenter stated that this would give back to the general category dependant fisherman more of his/her historical participation. The comment was endorsed by 31 general category and limited access scallop vessel owners. *Response:* Although the Council did not specifically consider an alternative that would allow stacking up to 2.5 percent, it did consider a sufficient range of levels and NMFS approved the level selected. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot implement an alternative as part of Amendment 11 that was not recommended by the Council. The Council did consider a cap of 60,000 lb (27,216 kg) or 150 trips per vessel, but determined that, if the overall TAC was very low in a particular year, setting the cap in pounds or trips could result in excessive (or insufficient) consolidation on one vessel. The cap in terms of percent of overall TAC allowed the value of the cap to adjust consistent with the TAC. *Comment 39:* A general category vessel owner preferred a 10-percent index value for best year and stated that a vessel that has fished multiple years and is being rated by its best year should not be given a baseline number that is more than that of a vessel that has fished only 1 year, if a weighted average must be chosen. *Response:* These types of concerns and different alternatives were weighed and considered by the Council in developing Amendment 11 and by NMFS in approving the amendment. Amendment 11 recognizes that some vessels relied more on the scallop fishery than others and provides those vessels with more weight in their IFQ determination based on the importance of the fishery to the vessel. The approved index values result in IFQ allocations that give more weight to vessels that depended on the fishery for more time during the qualification period. *Comment 40:* One commenter opposed the IFQ contribution factor because of inequities between various regions of the fishery (particular focus on the SNE scallop fishery), and suggested that there should be a SNE exemption to alleviate the problems. The commenter stated that allocation should be one-to-one, presumably meaning that the amount caught during the historical period would be the amount allocated. The commenter stated that, with the contribution factor based on best year and years active, SNE vessels should be exempt with a one-to-one allocation. Another general category scallop vessel owner echoed this comment, stating that the reason that such vessels should be exempted from the contribution factor is that the SNE exemption was only open for 6 months prior to the control date. *Response:* These types of concerns and alternatives were weighed and considered by the Council in developing Amendment 11 and by NMFS in approving the amendment. Some of the reasons that area-specific management and qualification criteria were not selected, with the exception of the NGOM Scallop Management Area, are described in the responses to Comments 12 and 42. Amendment 11 includes an index factor based on the years a vessel was active during the qualification period to adjust a vessel's contribution to the IFQ. This adjustment provides additional contribution for vessels that were active in, and relied more on, the scallop fishery for a longer period of time. A one-to-one contribution may not represent a fair allocation. As an example, a one-to-one contribution factor would make a vessel with only 1 year active in the scallop fishery equal to a vessel with the same best year landings but that was active for 5 years during the qualification period. *Comment 41:* An industry representative commented that the qualification criteria and individual allocation in pounds would help ensure that more active participants will achieve more significant allocations while scaling back general category effort overall. The industry representative commented that the scale-back of effort is appropriate, given the reductions in effort for the limited access fleet. The industry representative also commented that individual allocations and the IFQ transfer provisions accommodate general category vessel owners' concerns about maintaining participation in the fishery. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the qualification criteria and allocations provide for appropriate distribution of the IFQ scallop fishery TAC to qualifiers and that the TAC represents an appropriate reduction of catch relative to more recent years in the general category scallop fishery. NMFS also agrees that the IFQ provisions, including the IFQ transfer provisions, provide IFQ scallop vessel owners with sustainable fishing opportunities under Amendment 11. Sectors *Comment 42:* Several commenters supported sectors, but one individual expressed concern that NMFS and fishermen are not prepared for their complexity for management and enforcement. *Response:* NMFS is concerned about the potential for increased volume in sector proposals from both the scallop and multispecies industry. However, NMFS has approved the sector mechanism under Amendment 11 because it can result in effective and cooperative management of the IFQ scallop fishery. NMFS is preparing for the expansion of sector management through its Amendment 11 implementation strategy, combined with efforts to improve review and coordination of sector proposals and plans in the Northeast Regional Office. *Comment 43:* An industry representative supports the prohibition on exemptions under the sector provisions. *Response:* Although the Council could consider exemptions under the sector provisions consistent with its sector guidelines, it chose not to include exemptions in order to preserve the characteristics of the historical general category scallop fishery while allowing sector management. NGOM Scallop Management Area *Comment 44:* A fishing industry representative urged NMFS to disapprove the NGOM Scallop Management Area because it would have disproportionate and negative impacts on vessels that qualify for an IFQ scallop permit that also have a history of fishing in the NGOM area. The representative states that, for IFQ scallop vessels, the lower possession limit in the NGOM area disadvantages IFQ scallop vessels because it is inconsistent with the higher (400-lb (181.4-kg)) possession limit in the rest of the general category scallop fishery. The commenter was concerned because the proposed rule implied that a vessel qualified for an IFQ scallop permit could opt for an incidental scallop permit instead, allowing the vessel to take “unlimited” trips at 40 lb (18.1 kg) each, although this would not apply to the NGOM where the fishery would be closed to all scallop harvest once the TAC is harvested. *Response:* The comment implies that vessels that qualify for IFQ scallop permits that have fished in the NGOM are confined to fishing within that area and there are no other alternatives for such vessels. To the contrary, the IFQ scallop permit allows maximum fishing flexibility within the general category scallop fishery under Amendment 11. Not only can IFQ scallop vessels fish under their IFQ in any area open to scallop fishing, but if an owner chooses, he/she can transfer the IFQ to another IFQ scallop vessel. This provides an owner the option of fishing in other areas, or negotiating a business agreement to transfer the IFQ. On the other hand, vessels that do not qualify for the IFQ scallop permit have only the option of fishing in the NGOM or under the Incidental scallop permit. Further, the FSEIS for Amendment 11 demonstrates that the reliance on the Gulf of Maine for a scallop fishery during the qualification period, and more recently, has been extremely low. The majority of scallop landings originate from more southern areas of the Gulf of Maine, and from Georges Bank, SNE, and Mid-Atlantic general category scallop fisheries. In addition, Amendment 11 estimates that 70 vessels from Maine and 148 vessels from Massachusetts and New Hampshire would qualify for an IFQ scallop permit, with the majority of landings by those vessels coming from outside the boundaries of the NGOM scallop management area. To disapprove the NGOM for the advantage of the minority of the IFQ scallop fleet would result in no additional protective measures in the NGOM, where the fishery is distinct. This would be ineffective and would not meet the goal of the NGOM scallop management area to preserve the fishery in the area for any future fisheries that may occur. NMFS has therefore determined that the measures for the NGOM scallop management area are necessary and appropriate for the management of the scallop fishery. With respect to the implication that Incidental scallop vessels can take unlimited number of 40-lb (18.1 kg) trips, NMFS will clarify that would not be possible in the NGOM scallop management area because incidental catch is counted against the TAC and the possession of scallops in the NGOM scallop management area after the TAC has been reached is prohibited. *Comment 45:* An individual commented that the NGOM Scallop Management Area was created solely for residents of Maine, and that the NGOM Scallop Management Area is inconsistent with National Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. *Response:* National Standard 4 states that measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. The NGOM Scallop Management Area does not base any measures on being a resident of the State of Maine. Although the area is adjacent to the entire coast of Maine and may attract more Maine fishers, it also includes waters off of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Furthermore, any LAGC vessel could fish in the NGOM Scallop Management Area under Amendment 11. The area is a special management area, similar to the Sea Scallop Access Areas, which aims to prevent overharvest of a unique portion of the scallop resource and was designed to allow additional fishers to qualify to fish in the area that may not have qualified for the IFQ scallop permit. The NGOM Scallop Management Area measures are therefore consistent with National Standard 4. *Comment 46:* The State of Maine commented on the proposed NGOM TAC specification. Although the comment is specific to the actual TAC recommended by the Council under Framework 19, the comment appears to take issue with the foundation of the TAC, in that it excludes landings from state waters. The comment provides details regarding how the State of Maine would prefer that the TAC be established, primarily by including landings by federally permitted vessels in state waters and landings by limited access vessels fishing in the NGOM area. Maine believes that, by including these sources of landings, the TAC should be 126,000 lb (57,153 kg) as opposed to the 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) TAC proposed by the Council under Framework 19. A fishing industry representative commented that the TAC in the NGOM cannot be calculated without an assessment of the biomass and appropriate fishing mortality rate in the area. *Response:* The value of the TAC is not specified in Amendment 11, but is instead proposed in Framework 19. The Council deliberated this issue at length for both Amendment 11 and Framework 19. Proponents argued, and Amendment 11 explains, that the NGOM Scallop Management Area is necessary as a placeholder for future scallop fishing Federal waters in the event that a large amount of harvestable scallops return to the Gulf of Maine. Based on this rationale, the Council determined that the TAC for the NGOM Scallop Management Area would be based on the “Federal portion of the resource only,” meaning that landings from state waters would be excluded. Furthermore, landings by limited access vessels fishing under DAS were excluded because they are not a component of the general category landings or TAC. *Comment 47:* One commenter stated that the NGOM measures are useless in Amendment 11 because there are no scallops in the NGOM to be fished. *Response:* The NGOM Scallop Management Area would provide for limited fishing opportunities for vessels that do not qualify for IFQ scallop permits. It was also designed to be a placeholder for a future Federal waters fishery in the area, should the scallop resource become more abundant in the area. Although not currently surveyed by NMFS or other entities, the Gulf of Maine contains scallops and has supported a small fishery in recent years. *Comment 48:* One commenter supported the creation of the NGOM scallop management area but believes that the SNE area also deserves the same exemption status, with a 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit, because the area was closed to scallop fishing from 1996 through May 2004. *Response:* The SNE exemption was implemented under the NE Multispecies FMP in May 2004. The NGOM Scallop Management Area appears to have highlighted the SNE exemption because the Council adopted area-specific measures only for the NGOM but excluded qualification criteria specific to the area or for vessels that fished in the area. The NGOM Scallop Management Area was developed because the fishery in the area is different from the rest of the fishery (it is patchy and sporadic). Although the SNE exemption area was not opened to scalloping until 2004, there are no noteable differences in the fishery in that area that would warrant special management measures. The fishery in the NGOM is not integrated into the overall scallop fishery to the extent other areas, including the SNE, are. In addition, the NGOM area is not fished as actively and consistently as the SNE area has been recently. In addition, there would be no fair or equitable way to allow more lenient qualification criteria for vessels that fished within the SNE exemption area. Vessels that fished only in the SNE exemption area for scallops would have relied on the scallop fishery only between May and November, when the area was opened and the vessels first began to fish for scallops. Excluding a provision specific to these vessels is consistent with Amendment 11's goal to limit the fishery and allocation to vessels that had a reliance on the scallop fishery prior to the control date. Other Measures *Comment 49:* One commenter agrees that VMS should be required, but expressed concern about the cost of operating VMS units. *Response:* VMS are necessary in the general category fishery to track landings and activity relative to IFQs, the NGOM Scallop Management Area, and access areas. Most LAGC vessels are already operating a VMS under existing FMP requirements, or requirements under the NE Multispecies FMP (for vessels that do not qualify for an IFQ scallop permit). NMFS has estimated the cost of all new trip declarations and catch reports for all IFQ vessels combined to be approximately $15,000 annually (or about $42 per vessel annually, assuming 369 qualified IFQ scallop vessels). The increase in VMS operating costs would therefore be just over $3.00 per month, which NMFS considers a reasonable cost. A detailed description of the costs for new information collection requirements is included in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). *Comment 50:* An industry representative supported continuation of the 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit to prevent against consolidation of general category effort and capitalization of a new offshore scallop vessel fleet. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit is necessary to prevent capitalization of a new type of general category scallop fishery that is inconsistent with the Council's vision to maintain the small-scale characteristics of the general category fishery. *Comment 51:* An industry representative supports the 40-lb (18.1-kg) possession limit for Incidental scallop vessels to allow for incidental catch in other fisheries while discouraging directed fishing with the low limit. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the 40-lb (18.1-kg) possession limit for Incidental Catch scallop vessels is important to ensure that this sector of the general category fishery continues to focus on incidental catch and does not expand into a directed fishery. Comments on Proposed Measures and Regulations 1. Vessel Permits *Comment 52:* An industry representative suggested a revision to § 648.4(a)(2)(i)(I) to clarify that a limited access scallop vessel could also be issued an LAGC scallop permit because, as written, the industry representative believed that the regulation prohibited a limited access vessel from also being issued an LAGC scallop permit. *Response:* NMFS recognizes this ambiguity in the proposed rule and has revised the regulation to allow a limited access scallop vessel to be issued an LAGC scallop permit as well. *Comment 53:* An industry representative commented that in § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(i)(P) should be redesignated as paragraph (a)(2)(i)(R), because paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(P) and

(Q)already are designated. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(i)(O) was the final paragraph, and is now followed by paragraph (a)(2)(i)(P). *Comment 54:* An industry representative recommended that, in § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) should be reworded to more clearly convey the intent. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has reworded the regulation to be more clear. *Comment 55:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E) contains an incorrect reference to best year and years active regulations in § 648.53. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has corrected the references. *Comment 56:* The Council commented that it is not clear in § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(F) that a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ permit can choose not to apply for an IFQ scallop permit and instead qualify for a NGOM or Incidental Catch scallop permit. The Council stated that Amendment 11 specifies that an NGOM and Incidental Catch scallop permit requires a vessel to have a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004, but a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ scallop permit may not meet that criterion if it had a permit prior to, but not on, the control date. The Council confirmed that, since the qualification for the NGOM and Incidental Catch scallop permits are intended to be less restrictive, a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ permit can choose to apply for an NGOM or Incidental Catch scallop permit and would qualify for the less restrictive permit. The Council recommended that the regulation reflect this intent. *Response:* NMFS has revised regulatory text in § 648.4(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ scallop permit could be issued an NGOM or Incidental Catch scallop permit instead, even if the vessel did not have a permit as of the November 1, 2004, control date. *Comment 57:* The Council agreed with NMFS's interpretation in the proposed rule that limited access permit provisions would apply to all LAGC scallop permits. *Response:* The regulations reflect this comment and no change to the regulations is necessary. *Comment 58:* The Council suggested that the regulations pertaining to landings qualification for the IFQ scallop permit be explicit that landings must have occurred as of the November 1, 2004, control date and not beyond in the 2004 fishing year. *Response:* NMFS has revised the regulations to be clear that all landings must have occurred as of the November 1, 2004, control date for qualification, best year, and years active determinations. *Comment 59:* The Council commented that the proposed rule preamble should not have stated that a vessel's IFQ scallop permit would be invalidated for failure to pay cost recovery fees, but rather that the permit would not be renewed for the subsequent fishing year. *Response:* NMFS has clarified the regulations. However, these provisions were more specifically discussed under the Council's development of Framework 19 to the FMP. Proposed regulations for Framework 19 describe in detail the process and consequences for non-payment of IFQ cost recovery fees. 2. Transition to IFQ *Comment 60:* The Council commented that regulations at § 648.53(a)(2) and

(3)in the proposed rule do not clearly present the transition measures that would apply in 2009. The Council also commented that the regulations should indicate that the 10-percent allocation to general category fleet during the transition to IFQ should be in effect no longer than through the 2009 fishing year. After 2009, the general category fleet would be allocated 5 percent of the scallop catch. The Council commented that it never intended the transition to extend longer than 2 years. An industry representative also commented that the regulations pertaining to allocations for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years, particularly with respect to the transition to IFQ, are inconsistent with the Council's intent to allow transition to IFQs for no more than 2 years. The industry representative stated that NMFS does not have the authority to extend the transition measures beyond 2 years because such measures were not adopted by the Council. *Response:* NMFS has clarified the allocations and transition measures for the 2009 fishing years consistent with the Council's intent. However, as justified in the response to Comment 33, NMFS has clarified in this final rule that the 10-percent allocation divided by quarter would remain in place for the duration of the transition period, even if the transition period extends beyond the 2009 fishing year. Despite the comments and recommendations by the Council and industry representative, the Amendment 11 document and discussion clearly supports the continuation of the transition period allocation of 10 percent to the general category fishery for any period after 2009 that remains under transition. Although it is clear that the Council expects the transition period to last up to 2 years, there are no specifications in Amendment 11 for measures beyond the 2009 fishing year if the transition period continues. NMFS is not extending the transition period through the measures in this final rule, but rather is specifying that the Council's approved transition period measures would remain in place if the IFQ program cannot be implemented after the 2009 fishing year. Although NMFS does not expect the IFQ program to be delayed beyond the 2009 fishing year, it cannot predict how long it will take to identify the universe of IFQ scallop vessels in order to implement the IFQ program. 3. IFQ *Comment 61:* The Council agreed with NMFS's interpretation in the proposed rule that a CPH would be issued IFQ and that the IFQ associated with a CPH could be transferred. *Response:* The regulations reflect this comment and no change to the regulations is necessary. *Comment 62:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.53(h)(4), NMFS incorrectly characterized the cost recovery requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by stating that “The owner of a vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit and subject to the IFQ program specified in * * * this section must pay a portion of the proceeds from scallop fishing to NMFS to help NMFS recover up to 3 percent of the cost of administering and enforcing the IFQ program.” The industry representative pointed out that this is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the proposed rule preamble, which provide that industry may be charged up to 3 percent of the value of the landed product to cover actual costs related to the IFQ program and its enforcement. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has clarified this statement in this final rule. 4. NGOM *Comment 63:* The Council and an industry representative commented that the proposed rule does not consistently and properly state that the NGOM TAC is separate from the rest of the scallop fishery's overall TAC. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has clarified in this final rule that the NGOM Scallop Management Area TAC is separate from the TACs for the rest of the general category scallop fishery. *Comment 64:* The Council and an industry representative commented that the area definition for the NGOM must be corrected to include the area no rth of 42°20′ N. Lat. and within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, as approved by the Council. *Response:* NMFS agrees that the NGOM Scallop Management Area should be confined to the area nor th of 42°20′ N Lat. and within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area and has made that change in the final rule. *Comment 65:* The Council commented that scallop catch by Incidental Catch scallop vessels should count against the NGOM TAC, consistent with the proposed rule. *Response:* The regulations reflect this comment and no change to the regulations is necessary. 5. Sectors *Comment 66:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.63(b)(6), a phrase prohibiting the exemption from the 400-lb (181.4 kg) possession limit should be included to provide “absolute clarity that no vessel operating in a sector is exempt from the 400-lb possession limit.” *Response:* This revision is not necessary. The paragraph is clear that no exemption can be granted to sectors under the FMP except for relief of a vessel's own limitation of its IFQ. Singling out one provision for which an exemption cannot be issued would be confusing, since one could question why other provisions are not equally emphasized. 6. Other Measures *Comment 67:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.9, the use of the phrase “general scallop permit” is inconsistent with the use of “LAGC scallop permit” in all other sections of the proposed rule. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has changed “general scallop permit” to “LAGC scallop permit.” *Comment 68:* An industry representative commented that the use of “general category scallop fishery” in § 648.10 is unclear and questioned whether the phrase has utility in light of changes in the proposed rule to LAGC and other new references to the limited access general category scallop fishery. *Response:* NMFS has not modified the regulations based on this comment. The “general category fishery” describes the fishery that is conducted by LAGC scallop vessels. *Comment 69:* An industry representative questioned the elimination of the regulation in § 648.10 requiring the use of VMS by small dredge category scallop vessels. *Response:* While NMFS has eliminated the specific regulation at § 648.10(b)(1)(iii) in the Amendment 11 final rule, § 648.10(b)(1)(i) requires that all scallop vessels, except occasional scallop vessels that do not fish in access areas, must operate VMS units. No change is therefore necessary. *Comment 70:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.14, paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(D) appears to allow an IFQ scallop vessel that also holds a limited access scallop permit to possess more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallops while fishing under the IFQ scallop permit and outside of scallop DAS or the Area Access Program. The industry representative suggested deleting the paragraph. *Response:* NMFS agrees and has removed the paragraph and re-designated paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(E) as (a)(57)(iii)(D). *Comment 71:* An industry representative commented that, in § 648.55(a), the scallop regulations should no longer refer to “the adequacy of management measures to achieve the stock-rebuilding objectives.” *Response:* NMFS agrees that references to rebuilding the scallop resource may be misleading since the scallop resource is currently rebuilt. NMFS has revised this section of the regulation to be more generic to the conservation objectives of the FMP. *Comment 72:* An industry representative suggested that, in § 648.55, paragraph (e)(1) should be revised to read “Target total allowable catch and DAS changes.” *Response:* NMFS disagrees that this change is necessary. By changing the regulation to allow changes to target TACs and DAS, the Council would be precluded from establishing the hard TACs for the general category fleet through the framework process, since no other framework provision listed in § 648.55(e) would allow such specification. NMFS concludes that “Total allowable catch” can be either a target or hard TAC. *Comment 73:* The Council agreed with NMFS's interpretation that the increase of the possession limit of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line should apply to all LAGC scallop permitted vessels rather than just the IFQ scallop vessels. *Response:* The regulations reflect this comment and no change to the regulations is necessary. *Comment 74:* The Council commented that, while it did not recall specific discussion of the change in the ownership cap, as proposed by NMFS in the proposed rule, it agrees with the regulatory change so that the regulations are consistent with the original provision in Amendment 4. *Response:* NMFS brought this issue to the attention of the Scallop Committee and the Council during the final development of Amendment 11. NMFS used the Amendment 11 proposed rule as a mechanism to propose, under its authority granted by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(d)), the regulatory amendment to make the ownership cap and CPH regulations consistent with the intent of Amendment 4 to the FMP. As a regulatory amendment promulgated under the authority of the Secretary, the Council need not deem the regulation necessary and appropriate. NMFS generally confines regulatory amendments to those issues that are clarifications of existing regulations to improve consistency with an FMP's provisions or original intent of a measure that was inadvertently misrepresented in the final regulations implementing the measure. Changes From Proposed Rule to Final Rule In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(i)(O) is revised to correct the reference to the vessel replacement provisions in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E) of that section. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to clarify that all vessels fishing for scallops must have an LAGC scallop permit, or a limited access scallop permit. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) is revised to clarify the requirement that NGOM scallop vessels must fish within the NGOM scallop management area boundaries defined in § 648.62. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D)( *2* ) is revised to clarify that scallop landings must have occurred on or before November 1, 2004, and to specify the conversion rates for in-shell scallops to meat-weight. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E) is revised to correct references to § 648.53(h) for IFQ calculations. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F) is revised to clarify the requirement to have a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004, and that a vessel that qualifies for an IFQ scallop permit automatically qualifies for an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit if the owner of the IFQ scallop vessel elects instead to be issued an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(G)( *3* ) is revised to clarify the restriction on permit splitting prior to the effective date of Amendment 11. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(N) is revised to clarify the permit splitting restriction. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(O)(4) is revised to clarify the provision allowing vessels to fish under a temporary letter of authorization while an appeal is pending. In § 648.9(c)(2)(D), “general category scallop permit” is replaced with “LAGC scallop permit.” In § 648.10, paragraph (b)(4)(iv) is revised to clarify the requirement for daily catch reports through VMS by vessels fishing in the Area Access Program. In § 648.14, paragraph (a)(56) reference to the trip declaration is deleted to avoid requiring Incidental scallop vessels from declaring a general category scallop trip. In § 648.14, the text in paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(D) is replaced with the text of paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(E), and paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(E) is removed. Paragraph (a)(57)(iii)(D) is revised by deleting the trip declaration requirement to avoid requiring Incidental scallop vessels from declaring a general category scallop trip. In § 648.14, the revision of paragraph (h)(19) has been re-designated as a revisions to paragraph (h)(20). In § 648.14, paragraph (i)(1)(ii) is revised to prohibit a vessel from landing scallops more than once per calendar day, rather than from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops more than once per calendar day. In § 648.14, paragraph (i)(1)(iv) is revised to clarify that declaration requirements do not apply to Incidental scallop vessels. In § 648.14, paragraph (i)(2)(xiii) is revised by eliminating the term “sub-lease” since “lease” is not used elsewhere in the scallop regulations pertaining to IFQ transfers. In § 648.52, paragraphs (a), (b), and

(c)are revised to restrict a vessel to landing scallops only once per calendar day, rather than fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops only once per calendar day. In § 648.53, paragraph

(a)is revised in its entirety to clarify the TAC allocations and the transition measures to IFQ. In § 648.53, paragraph (a)(9) is added to specify the incidental catch TAC. In § 648.53, paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A) and

(B)are revised to clarify that landings of scallops for “best year” and “years active” determinations must have occurred on or before November 1, 2004. In § 648.53, paragraph (h)(3)(i) is revised to specify that a vessel can exceed the 2-percent IFQ limit if its contribution percentage specified during the initial application process results in the vessel's allocation exceeding 2 percent. In § 648.53, paragraph (h)(3)(i) is revised to specify that a vessel owner can exceed the 5-percent ownership cap if the total IFQ for all of the vessels combined upon initial application/issuance of the IFQ scallop permit results in the owner having an ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop fleet. In § 648.53, paragraph (h)(4) is revised to clarify that the cost recovery fee is equal to 3 percent of the value of landed scallops, not 3 percent of the cost of administering the IFQ program. In addition, this paragraph clarifies the general requirements for IFQ vessel owners involved in a temporary transfer of IFQ to pay cost recovery fees. In § 648.53, paragraph (h)(5)(ii) is revised to specify that a permanent transfer cannot be limited in duration. In § 648.53, the term “lease” has been removed from the heading of paragraph (h)(5)(iv)(C) to be consistent with terminology for the IFQ transfer program throughout the scallop regulations. In § 648.55, paragraph

(a)is revised by replacing “rebuilding objectives” with “scallop resource conservation objectives.” In § 648.59, paragraphs (b)(5)(i), (c)(5)(i), (d)(5)(i), and (e)(6)(i) are revised to include a provision to specify the TACs for each access area that would be used to determine the number of limited access trips per area and for each category of limited access scallop trips. In § 648.59, paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(B), (c)(5)(ii)(B), and (d)(5)(ii)(B) are revised to reflect the 2008 fishing year specifications. In § 648.59, paragraph (e)(6)(i) and

(ii)are re-designated as paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii). Paragraph (e)(6) is no longer included in § 648.59. In § 648.62, paragraph

(a)is revised to clarify that the NGOM scallop management area is defined as the area north of 42°20′ N. lat. and within the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. In § 648.62, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to clarify the reference to the NGOM scallop management area definition. In § 648.63, paragraph (c)(1)(L) is added to require submission of other necessary and appropriate information as part of the Sector operations plan. In § 648.63, paragraph (d)(3) is revised to reflect current timing requirements for submission of annual operations plans by Sectors. The December 1 date specified in the proposed rule would not provide NMFS with sufficient time to complete all associated review requirements for Sector operations plan submissions. This change is consistent with current provisions accepted for the NE Multispecies FMP Sector policy and operating provisions. Classification NMFS has determined that the amendment this final rule implements is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, has taken into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 11; an NOA was published on October 19, 2007. The FSEIS describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 11 measures on the environment. Since most of the measures would determine whether or not fishers can continue fishing for scallops, and at what level in the future, the majority of the impacts are social and economic. Although the impacts may be negative in the short term, particularly at an individual fisher level, the long-term benefits of a sustainable scallop fishery would be positive. Elimination of the open access fishery is expected to have positive impacts on the biological and physical environment. This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0529. Public reporting burden for these collections of information are estimated to average as follows: Add PRA Approval Number to Req's—Need OMB Approval First 1. Initial application for an IFQ scallop permit, OMB #0648-0491—30 min per response; 2. Initial application for an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit, OMB #0648-0491—15 min per response; 3. Completion of ownership cap form for IFQ scallop vessel owners, OMB #0648-0491—5 min per response; 4. Appeal for an LAGC scallop permit and IFQ scallop vessel contribution factor, OMB #0648-0491—2 hr per response; 5. Application for a vessel replacement or confirmation of permit history OMB #0648-0491—3 hr per response; 6. Purchase and installation of a VMS unit for general category scallop vessels, OMB #0648-0491—2 hr per response; 7. IFQ scallop vessel VMS trip notification requirements, OMB #0648-0491—2 min per response; 8. NGOM scallop fishery VMS trip notification requirements, OMB #0648-0491—2 min per response; 9. Incidental catch vessel VMS trip notification requirements, OMB #0648-0491—2 min per response; 10. Pre-landings VMS notification requirements, OMB #0648-0491—5 min per response; 11. Application for an IFQ transfer, OMB #0648-0491—10 min per response; 12. Electronic payment of cost recovery payment, OMB #0648-0491—2 hr per response; 13. LAGC scallop fishery sector applications, OMB #0648-0491—150 hr per response; and 14. Sector operations plans, OMB #0648-0491—100 hr 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 information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates, 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, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), has prepared a FRFA in support of Amendment 11. The FRFA describes the economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities. The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summarized in the IRFA for the proposed rule to implement Amendment 11, the comments and responses in this final rule, and the corresponding economic analyses prepared for Amendment 11 (e.g., the FSEIS and the RIR). The contents of these incorporated documents are not repeated in detail here. A copy of the IRFA, the RIR, and the FSEIS are available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). A description of the reasons for this action, the objectives of the action, and the legal basis for this final rule are found in Amendment 11 and the preamble to the proposed and final rules. Statement of Need for This Action The purpose of this action is to improve the management of the general category scallop fishery and the scallop fishery overall. A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments Fishing privileges will be assigned based on a vessel's fishing history and vessels that do not meet the qualification requirements for an LAGC scallop permit will no longer be eligible to fish for scallops unless the vessel replaces a vessel that is qualified for on the of the LAGC scallop permits. The allocation of scallop catch to the general category fleets will further restrict the amount of revenues derived from scallop landings by the general category fleet while ensuring that fishing mortality objectives of the FMP are achieved. The impacts of Amendment 11 are therefore largely social and economic. The measures will have direct negative economic impacts on vessel owners that do not have a qualifying vessel or that have fished more intensely recently than during the qualifying time period. As a result, the majority of comments opposing Amendment 11 that are described in the “Comments and Responses” section of the preamble of this final rule addressed issues relative to the IRFA in that commenters expressed concern directly and indirectly about the economic impacts of the measures and the impacts on small-scale vessel operations. NMFS's assessment of the issues raised in comments and responses is provided in the “Comments and Responses” section of the preamble of this final rule and are not repeated here. After taking all public comments into consideration, NMFS approved Amendment 11 on February 27, 2008. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities To Which the Rule Would Apply All vessels in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery are considered small business entities because all of them grossed less than $4.5 million according to dealer data for the 2004 and 2005 fishing years. Therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts on small entities. According to this information, annual total revenue averaged about $940,065 per limited access vessel in 2004, and over $1 million per limited access vessel in 2005. Total revenues per vessel, including revenues from species other than scallops, exceeded these amounts, but were less than $4.5 million per vessel. Average scallop revenue per general category vessel was $35,090 in fishing year

(FY)2004 and $88,702 in FY 2005. Average total revenue per general category vessel was higher, exceeding $240,000 in FY's 2004 and 2005. According to the preliminary estimates, average revenues per vessel were lower in the first 11 months of 2006 for all permit categories, because of lower scallop landings and prices. The measures proposed in Amendment 11 would affect vessels with limited access scallop and general category permits. Section 4.4 (Fishery-related businesses and communities) of the Amendment 11 document provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that will be affected by the regulations, by port and state. These affected entities are the owners of 318 vessels that were issued full-time permits in 2006 (including 55 small-dredge and 14 scallop trawl permits; 32 part-time; and 1 occasional limited access permit). In addition, 2,501 permits were issued to vessels in the open access General Category, and more than 500 of these vessels landed scallops during the last 2 years. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action contains several new collection-of-information, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The following describes these requirements. 1. Application Process NMFS estimates that there will be 500 applicants for an IFQ scallop permit, 200 applicants for a NGOM scallop permit, and 500 applicants for an Incidental scallop permit. Each IFQ scallop permit application will take approximately 30 min per application, while each NGOM and Incidental scallop permit application will take approximately 15 min to process. Consequently, the total time burden for the initial applications will be approximately 425 hr. Amendment 11 estimates that 370 IFQ scallop permit, 190 NGOM scallop permit, and 465 Incidental scallop vessels are expected to qualify and consequently renew their application each year. Permit renewal is estimated to take 15 min per application, on average, for a total burden of approximately 256 hr per year. The 3-year average total public time burden for IFQ, NGOM, and Incidental scallop permit initial applications, and permits renewals is expected to be approximately 312 hr. The labor cost, at an hourly rate of $15, will to be $4,680. To implement the 5-percent IFQ ownership cap, vessel owners will be required to submit an ownership form with each permit renewal. Since there will be an estimated 370 IFQ permits, there will be about 370 ownership forms each year. NMFS estimates that it will take 5 min to complete each ownership form; therefore, the annual reporting burden will be about 31 hr, or 21 hr, averaged over the first 3 years. At an hourly rate of $15, the annualized time burden will be approximately $315. About 80 applicants are expected to appeal the denial of their permit application over the course of the 3-month application period. The appeals process is estimated to take 2 hr per appeal, on average, for a total burden of 160 hr. The burden of this one-time appeal, annualized over 3 years, will be about 54 hr. At an hourly rate of $15, the time burden will be approximately $810. 2. Vessel Replacement, Upgrade, and Permit History Applications A standard form for vessel replacements, upgrades, and permit history applications (RUPH application) will be used for LAGC scallop permits, although vessel upgrades will not apply for LAGC scallop vessels unless the vessel is issued other limited access fishery permits that have upgrade restrictions. With the exception of upgrade restrictions, LAGC scallop vessels will be subject to similar replacement and permit history restrictions as other Northeast Region limited access fisheries. Completion of an RUPH application requires an estimated 3 hr per response. It is estimated that 100 RUPH applications will be received annually. The resultant burden will be up to 300 hr. At an hourly rate of $15 per hour, the total public cost burden for RUPH applications will be about $4,500 per year. 3. New VMS Requirements This action will require vessels issued any of the LAGC scallop permits to install VMS. Most vessels that qualify for an IFQ scallop permit have been participating in the directed general category scallop fishery, which already had VMS requirements prior to the implementation of Amendment 11. Therefore, it is likely that most vessels that will qualify for an IFQ permit already have VMS. Vessels that qualify for an Incidental or NGOM scallop permit will not likely be participating in the directed general category scallop fishery. However, vessels that qualify for an Incidental or NGOM scallop permit may already have VMS reporting requirements through other fisheries, particularly the NE multispecies fishery. It is possible that some new permit holders will decide to purchase and install new VMS units in order to participate in one of these fisheries. Therefore, NMFS estimates that up to 10 vessels will purchase and install VMS units as a result of Amendment 11. NMFS estimates that it will take 2 hr to purchase each unit, for a total time burden of 20 hr; annualized over 3 years, the burden will be about 7 hr per year. NMFS anticipates that a vessel owner will hire a VMS technician to install the VMS unit; therefore there will be no installation time burden for the vessel owner. At an hourly rate of $15 per hour, the total public cost burden for VMS purchases will be $105 per unit. Since position polling is automated, there is no associated time burden with this reporting requirement. 4. Trip Notification Requirements Each time a LAGC scallop vessel leaves port or is moved from the dock or mooring, the operator must submit a VMS trip declaration code to notify NMFS of the vessel's fishing activity. According to 2007 VMS trip declaration data for 1B scallop vessels, approximately 40 percent of the time general category 1B vessels declare a general category scallop trip; the remainder are codes for other activities (if a vessel leaves port, general category regulations require it to declare a trip, regardless of the fishing activity). The 2008 scallop harvest specifications have not yet been finalized, but the proposed IFQ quota is 2.5 million lb (1,134 mt). Assuming each trip harvests the 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit, there will be an estimated 6,250 IFQ trip declarations per year, with an additional 9,375 trip declarations for some activity other than scallop fishing, for a total of 15,625 trip declarations per year. NMFS assumes that the vessel operator will submit a power-down code to reduce polling costs and conserve battery power following each trip. NMFS estimates that it takes approximately 2 min to submit a trip declaration or power-down code. NMFS estimates that the IFQ fleet will submit 31,250 VMS declaration codes (15,625 trip declarations and 15,625 corresponding power-down code submissions); therefore, the annual IFQ trip declaration time burden will be 1,042 hr. At an hourly rate of $15, this burden will be $15,630. 5. NGOM Notification Requirements The proposed NGOM TAC is expected to be 64,000 to 100,030 lb (29,030 to 45,373 kg) each year. Assuming each trip lands the 200-lb (90.7-kg) possession limit, and using the upper limit of the proposed TAC, it is projected that there will be up to 500 NGOM trip declarations per year. For economic purposes it is unlikely that a vessel owner will incur the cost of a VMS unit solely to have a NGOM permit. Therefore, assuming these vessels already have VMS reporting requirements for other fisheries, VMS declaration reporting requirements for activities other than NGOM activity have already been accounted for in other approved PRA collections. The increased reporting burden resulting from the NGOM permit category will be approximately 500 trip declarations and 500 power-down declarations. Assuming each declaration takes approximately 2 min, the annual NGOM trip declaration time burden will be approximately 34 hr. At an hourly rate of $15, this burden will be $510. 6. Incidental Scallop Vessel VMS Notification Requirements In 2004 and 2005, dealer data indicated that the percentage of scallops landed in quantities of 40 lb (18.1 kg) or less was 0.02 and 0.06 percent, respectively, of the total scallop landings. The average scallop landings on these trips in FY 2004 and 2005 was 19,363 lb (8,783 kg). Using this average, NMFS estimates that approximately 500 general category trips landed scallops incidental to other fishing. Assuming this rate will remain approximately the same, an estimated 500 Incidental trip declarations will be made annually. As previously noted, for economic purposes it is unlikely that a vessel owner will incur the cost of a VMS unit solely to have an Incidental scallop permit. Therefore, assuming these vessels already have VMS reporting requirements for other fisheries, VMS declaration reporting requirements for activities other than Incidental scallop permit activity have already been accounted for in other approved PRA collections. The increased reporting burden resulting from the Incidental scallop permit category will be approximately 500 trip declarations and 500 power-down declarations. Assuming each trip declaration takes approximately 2 min, the annual Incidental scallop trip declaration time burden will be approximately 34 hr. At an hourly rate of $15, this burden will be $510. 7. Pre-Landing Notification Requirements VMS pre-landing notification forms will be required for each IFQ and NGOM scallop trip. Therefore, there will be 6,250 IFQ and 500 NGOM scallop vessel pre-landing notification forms submitted annually. NMFS estimates that it will take 5 min for each of the 6,750 reports, for an annual pre-landing notification time burden of 563 hr. At an hourly rate of $15, this burden will be $8,445. 8. State Waters Exemption Program Requirements The state waters exemption program enrollment form is estimated to take 5 min to submit through the VMS—the same amount of time as it has taken to enroll through interactive voice response system currently used. State waters exemption program trip declaration requirements are already accounted for in an approved collection under OMB Control No. 0648-0202. Therefore, this burden will not increase the cost to vessel owners declaring into the state waters exemption program. 9. IFQ Transfers IFQ transfers will apply to IFQ scallop vessels, except that current limited access scallop vessels that also have been issued an IFQ scallop permit will not be permitted to transfer IFQ. Using the Northeast Region's Northeast Multispecies DAS leasing program (OMB Control No. 0648-0475) as a proxy for the response rate for the IFQ transfer program, NMFS anticipates that there will be approximately 75 temporary transfers annually. Each application will include information from both parties involved in the temporary transfer; therefore there will be two responses per application. NMFS estimates that it will take 5 min per response, or 10 min per temporary IFQ transfer application. Therefore, the total estimated annual burden will be 13 hr. At an hourly rate of $15/hour, the total public cost burden for temporary IFQ transfer applications will be $195 per year. The Northeast Multispecies DAS Permanent Transfer Program cannot be easily correlated with the general category permanent transfer program because the Northeast Multispecies Program has a 20-percent conservation tax on all transfers, while there will be no conservation tax on scallop IFQ transfers. Although NMFS anticipates that there will be more IFQ transfers than DAS transfers, IFQ transfers will be restricted by the requirement that no IFQ vessel owner could have an ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the total TAC for IFQ scallop vessels, and no vessel could have more than 2 percent of the total TAC for IFQ scallop vessels at any time. NMFS anticipates that there will be approximately 10 permanent IFQ transfers per year. Each application will include information from both parties involved in the transfer; therefore there will be two responses per application. It is estimated that it will take 5 min per response, or 10 min per permanent transfer application. Therefore, the estimated permanent IFQ transfer burden will be 2 hr per year. At an hourly rate of $15 per hour, the total public cost burden for permanent quota transfer applications will be $30 per year. 10. Cost Recovery Since cost recovery for the scallop IFQ program is new, and there are no other current cost recovery programs in Northeast Region fisheries, the burden per response used by the Alaska Region's Alaska Individual Fishing Quota Cost-Recovery Program Requirements (OMB Control No. 0648-0398) was used as a proxy for the scallop IFQ program. Each IFQ permit holder will be required to submit a cost recovery payment once annually, which will take 2 hr per response. There will be 370 payments (one per qualified IFQ scallop vessel) that will take approximately 740 hr in total. At an hourly rate of $15/hour, the total public cost burden for cost recovery will be $11,100 per year. 11. LAGC Sector Program NMFS estimates that there could be up to nine sector proposals received over the next 3 years (2008-2009)—five in the first year, two in the second year, and two in the third year. The earliest that the sectors proposed in the 2008 year could be implemented is the 2009 fishing year. Therefore, these sectors will be required to submit operation plans for the 2010 fishing year. Any person could submit a sector allocation proposal for a group of LAGC scallop vessels to the Council at least 1 year in advance of the anticipated start of a sector program, and request that the sector be implemented through the framework procedure specified at § 648.55. Based upon consultations with the Northeast multispecies sector program, it is estimated it will take 150 hr to prepare and submit a sector proposal. Therefore, the 3-year average annualized time burden for sector proposals will be 450 hr per year. At an hourly rate of $15 per hour, the total public cost burden for sector proposals will be $6,750 per year. A sector is required to resubmit its operations plan to the Regional Administrator no later than December 1 of each year, whether or not the plan has changed. Based upon consultations with the Northeast multispecies sector program, each operations plan takes approximately 100 hr. The earliest sector operation plans will be submitted in 2010 for the proposals submitted in 2008. Therefore, NMFS estimates it will take 500 hr to submit five operation plans. The 3-year average annualized time burden will be 167 hr per year. At an hourly rate of $15 per hour, the annual time burden cost will be approximately $2,500. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected The following discussion also includes a description of the economic impacts of the proposed action compared to significant non-selected alternatives as required under the RFA for inclusion in the FRFA. In summary, the proposed limited access program could have negative economic impacts in the short term on the estimated 373 vessels that would not qualify for a LAGC scallop permit, with adverse impacts compared to 2005 scallop revenue estimated to be less than 5 percent for 119 vessels, 5 to 49 percent for 58 vessels, and 50 percent or more for 196 vessels. The measures would also have negative impacts on about 153 out of 369 vessels that are estimated to qualify for the IFQ scallop permit, with adverse impacts compared to 2005 scallop revenue estimated to be less than 5 percent for 26 of these vessels, 5 to 50 percent for 70 vessels, and over 50 percent for 57 vessels. Altogether, approved Amendment 11 measures could reduce total revenues of 381 vessels of more than 5 percent in the short-term. There are several measures in the proposed action, however, to help mitigate and reduce the potential negative impacts on these vessels. Qualifying vessels would be permitted to stack allocation up to 2 percent of the entire general category allocation and to transfer ( *i.e.* , lease or buy) IFQ on a permanent or temporary basis. This would enable vessel owners who do not receive an adequate amount of allocation to increase their scallop revenue to mitigate negative impacts. Furthermore, there is a provision to allow the formation of voluntary sectors. It may be beneficial for a group of vessels from a fishing community, for example, to organize and apply for a sector in the general category fishery. Negative impacts on some vessel owners may be mitigated if a vessel would qualify for a NGOM scallop permit that authorizes it to fish for scallops at a reduced level. In addition, many of the vessels that would not qualify for the IFQ scallop permit would qualify for an Incidental scallop permit that would authorize the vessel to land up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops per trip. Continuation of the open access fishery under the no action alternative would not guarantee that the affected vessel owners would get more scallop revenue than they could with the proposed limited access program. With continued open access, there would always be the risk of more vessels entering the fishery, with the potential for overcapitalization of the scallop fishery and overfishing of the scallop resource. Overfishing would likely cause a reduction in landings per unit effort, an increase in fishing costs per pound of scallops, and dissipation of the profits for all limited access and general category vessels. There would also be possible future negative effects on the existing limited access scallop vessels with the continuation of the open access program because the need to prevent an increase in overall fishing mortality would at some point reduce the DAS allocations for the limited access fleet to compensate for projected general category catch. Assuming a scallop harvest of 50 million lb (22,680 mt), an increase in the share of general category landings to 20 percent of the total scallop landings would result in a decline of 17 percent to 21 percent of the net vessel share (as a proxy for profits) for the limited access vessels. Given that, in 2005, the general category landings increased to 14 percent of the total landings from about 5 percent in 2004, a further increase in general category effort could occur without a limited access program. Because it would prevent further expansion of the general category fishery, the economic impacts of the proposed measures on the 351 existing limited access vessels would be positive both in the short and the long term. Reducing the general category catch from recent levels could increase the total DAS allocations for those vessels, resulting in approximately a 7-percent increase in their revenues compared to the status quo levels. Similarly, the general category limited access program would benefit the current limited access vessels that qualify for an IFQ permit, although the proposed 0.5-percent allocation of the total scallop TAC could lower their landings compared to recent levels (1.5 percent and 0.75 percent of overall scallop landings in 2005 and 2006, respectively). The overall economic impacts of the limited entry in the medium to long term are expected to be positive for the sea scallop fishery as a whole, compared to taking no action. The proposed action would restrict the estimated number of participants in the general category fishery to 369 vessels that meet the IFQ permit qualification criteria. The allocation of a 5-percent TAC for the general category would cap the fishing mortality from this component of the fleet. The limited access program would also prevent the profits of the qualifiers and limited access vessels from being dissipated due to an increase in fleet capacity that would likely occur with continued open access. NMFS evaluated the Council's proposed measures relative to compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including national standards, required provisions, and the discretionary provision pertaining to limited access programs, as well as with applicable laws and the FMP. NMFS has determined that Amendment 11 is consistent with all National Standards, including National Standard 4 (which requires management measures to be fair and equitable, but which recognizes that fishing privilege may need to be allocated among fishermen), and National Standard 8 (requiring management measures to minimize adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable, on fishing communities). Without Amendment 11 and the controls on access to the fishery, estimated catch levels would continue to be exceeded, compromising NMFS's ability to effectively manage the scallop fishery overall. Uncontrolled, the general category fishery could contribute to excess fishing mortality on the scallop resource. As a result, the long-term economic and social impacts would be negative for the scallop fishery as a whole. All general category fishermen are small scale fishermen, given the vessels' relatively low level of scallop catch compared to vessels in the limited access fleet. All scallop fishing vessels are small entities as defined by the RFA. Amendment 11 measures will impact all scallop vessels to varying degrees. General category scallop landings and revenues since the November 1, 2004, control date have been the highest on record. Amendment 11 will curtail this recent ramp-up in effort, thus having a negative impact on revenues of some fishermen. Amendment 11 will have short-term negative economic and social impacts on vessel owners that fished more intensely recently than they did during the qualifying time period. Vessel owners with historical landings and participation similar to current levels will be the least impacted. Negative impacts on non-qualified vessels ( *i.e.* , post-control date entrants) will be most severe, since their revenues from scallop landings will be terminated. Amendment 11 contains no provisions specifically designed to minimize negative impacts on non-qualified vessels, although various alternatives to allow such vessels to continue fishing were considered and rejected by the Council because they were not consistent with the goal of Amendment 11 to reduce capacity and mortality in the general category fishery. These vessels entered the fishery after the November 1, 2004, control date, despite the control date's intent to deter individuals from unduly investing in, or relying on this fishery. In order for the effort reduction to be meaningful, while allowing remaining fishery participants to have reasonable opportunities to fish, some vessels must be eliminated. NMFS has concluded that the historic participants should have the opportunity to continue to fish. The evaluation of Amendment 11 measures concluded that the suite of measures; in particular the limited access program, the IFQ program, IFQ transfer provisions, and sector provisions; combine to minimize the negative impacts on qualified vessels. Positive impacts on the qualified participants, as well as the existing limited access fleet, are expected as the harvest capacity of, and fishing mortality by the general category fleet is controlled. A description of significant alternatives to the measures approved as part of Amendment 11 which affect the impact on small entities and the reasons why these other alternatives were not adopted follows. Landings Criteria Two alternatives to the proposed landings qualification criteria were considered: Scallop landings on one trip during the qualification period of 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more; and cumulative annual landings of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). The 100-lb (45.4-kg) landing qualification criteria is estimated to qualify more vessels

(548)for limited access and have a lower negative impact on the recent participants than the preferred alternative. On the other hand, by increasing the number of participants, this alternative would result in a lower share of general category TAC for each qualifier and would thus have a negative impact on individual vessels, especially on vessel owners that have a high dependence on scallop revenue as a source of income. For example, the average allocation per vessel would decline from 5,429 lb (2,462 kg) to 3,650 lb (1,656 kg) per vessel if the poundage criterion was set at 100 lb (45.4 kg) instead of at 1,000 lb (454 kg) for a general category TAC of 2 million lb (907 mt). The alternative 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) landings qualification criterion is estimated to qualify only 188 vessels for limited access and, thus, would increase the share of each qualifier in general category TAC. As a result, average allocation per vessel would increase to 10,638 lb (4,825 kg) with a 2-million-lb (907-mt) general category TAC. Although this alternative would have positive economic impacts on the vessels that had a much higher historical dependence on scallops as a source of their income, it would deny eligibility to a much larger number of vessels that historically derived some revenue from scallop fishery. The proposed 1,000-lb (454-kg) alternative would deny eligibility to a large number of vessels that have small landings of scallops ( *i.e.* , that landed between 100 and 999 lb (45.4 kg to 453 kg)), while qualifying vessels that depend on scallops to a larger degree. Qualification Time Period Eligibility for limited access would require a vessel to have made the required amount of landings in any scallop fishing year during a specified time period. In addition to the proposed March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, qualification period, the Council considered two alternative qualification periods: March 1, 1994, through November 1, 2004; and March 1, 2003, through November 1, 2004. The economic impacts of the qualification period, combined with the landing criteria, are analyzed in several sub-sections of Section 5.4 of the Amendment 11 document and are summarized here. The impacts on the general category permit holders and vessels that qualify for limited access are analyzed in Section 5.4.3 of the Amendment 11 document. The impacts on revenues, fishing costs, average net revenues, crew and vessel shares are analyzed in Section 5.4.5 of the Amendment 11 document, for various levels of general category TAC. The impacts of the proposed 5-yr qualification period and other alternatives on recent participants in the general category fishery are analyzed in Section 5.4.6 of the Amendment 11 document. The proposed 5-yr qualification period, combined with the 1,000-lb (454-kg) landings criteria, is expected to have positive economic impacts in the short and long term on vessel owners with vessels that qualify for limited access. It would provide access to those general category vessels that were active in the fishery in recent years, as well as to historical participants that were active from March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004. The proposed 1,000-lb (454-kg) poundage criterion and the 5-yr qualification period would qualify 369 vessels, but would deny eligibility to 90 vessels that meet the 1,000-lb (454-kg) criterion for their activity during FY 1994-1999. The economic impacts on these historic participants would be negative in terms of a loss in future potential revenue from scallops, unless they buy a vessel that qualifies for limited access. The proposed 5-yr qualification period would not have any impact on the current income of most of these vessels, given that most have not been active since 2000; only 10 vessels are estimated to have participated in the fishery after the control date (November 1, 2004). The longer qualification period would cause the general category TAC to be divided among a larger number of vessels, most of which were not recently active in the fishery, and vessels that depend on scallops would receive a smaller share than they would with the proposed 5-yr qualification period. This would have negative economic impacts on the vessels that depend on scallops to a larger degree. There are also some measures included in the proposed action that could mitigate some of these adverse economic impacts on non-qualifiers. If these vessels had a permit before the control date, they could obtain an incidental catch permit and land up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) per trip, and thus still earn some revenue from scallops. Other vessel owners could choose to obtain an NGOM scallop permit and participate in the NGOM fishery, subject to a possession limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip and a hard TAC. The 2-yr qualification period alternative would have restricted eligibility to 277 general category vessels that landed 1,000 lb (454 kg) or more of scallops during the period March 1, 2003, through November 1, 2004, instead of 369 vessels under the proposed action. Although this alternative would result in a larger share per vessel qualified for limited access, it was found to be inequitable to participants who did not fish for scallops in 2003-2004, but who did fish in recent years since 2000. IFQ Vessel Contribution Factor Under the proposed action, each IFQs vessel's contribution factor would be determined by identifying the year with the highest landings during the qualification time period, and multiplying it by an index that increases as the number of years in which the vessel landed scallops during the qualification time period increases. For example, the index is 0.75 if the vessel landed scallops in 1 year, and 1.25 if the vessel landed scallops in 5 years. Therefore, the proposed action would allocate more pounds to those vessels that were active in the fishery for a longer period of time. In addition to the proposed measure, the Council considered three alternatives to calculate the contribution factor. One alternative used the vessel's best year of landings during the qualification time period. Another alternative used the vessel's best year multiplied by a lower range of index factor than the proposed action. The third alternative used either the best year of landings during the qualification time period, or the indexed best year of landings during the qualification time period, but capped the contribution at 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) of scallops. The economic impacts of the contribution factor alternatives are analyzed in Section 5.4.7.1 through 5.4.7.2 of the Amendment 11 document. The alternatives to the proposed option would have distributional economic impacts less favorable to the vessels that were active in the fishery for many years. The alternative that used a lower range of index values (0.9 to 1.10, rather than 0.75 to 1.25) would provide only a slight increase in IFQ share for vessels that were active in the fishery for a long period of time, while only slightly decreasing share for vessels that were in the general category scallop fishery for only 1 year. This would have had more negative impacts on a larger number of vessels that had a longer history in the general category scallop fishery. The alternative allocation based on best year (Section 3.1.2.3.1 of the Amendment 11 document) would have had negative economic impacts on those vessels that had a longer history of participation, since allocation would be determined regardless of years active. For the same reason, this alternative would have had positive economic impacts on those vessels that had a shorter history of participation. The final alternative, which would establish the 50,000-lb (22,680-kg) cap on a vessel's contribution factor, would prevent a vessel from getting a larger share of the fishery even if it had very high historical landings. This alternative would have impacted vessels with higher landings more severely than vessels with lower landings, and was therefore not selected. The proposed alternative using the best-year indexed by the number of years active is intended to help reduce the negative impacts on those participants with an established history and long-term investment in scallop fishing. Scallop Allocation for LACG Scallop Vessels The Council considered several ways of allocating IFQ to vessels that qualify for a LAGC scallop permit (excluding NGOM and Incidental scallop vessels). These included: Allocations by vessel in pounds of scallops or number of trips per vessel; allocations to two allocation tiers where every vessel in a tier would receive the same allocation; allocation to three allocation tiers; a fleetwide hard TAC; and a fleetwide hard TAC allocated into either quarters or trimesters. The Council also considered a stand-alone IFQ alternative that would confer eligibility on IFQ vessels based only on past permit issuance, and would use the contribution factor alternative adopted by the Council to allocate a vessel's IFQ. The economic impacts of the allocation alternatives are analyzed in section 5.4.8 of the Amendment 11 document. Under the proposed action, NMFS would calculate a vessel's IFQ by multiplying the overall general category TAC by the vessel's contribution factor. An example demonstrating the calculation of a vessel's IFQ is provided in the “IFQs for Limited Access General Category Scallop Vessels” section of the preamble of this proposed rule. The allocation of IFQ would eliminate the derby fishing effect that results from a TAC because an IFQ assures that each vessel can land a given quantity anytime during the fishing year. Vessel owners would have the flexibility to select the time and the area to fish in order to minimize their costs and/or maximize their revenues. Since the fishing effort would be spread over a longer period of time, the price of scallops would be more stable throughout the season. This, combined with the availability of a fresh and/or higher quality scallops over a longer season, would benefit consumers as well as producers. Therefore, the proposed allocation alternative would have positive economic impacts on the vessels that qualify for limited access general category fishery. Although maintaining the 400-lb (181.4-kg) possession limit would cause some inefficiencies and result in higher costs compared to a higher possession limit (alternative 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip), this provision is intended to help preserve the historical small-boat character of this fleet. The non-selected alternative that would have allocated a number of trips to each scallop vessel has an advantage over the IFQ alternative because it is easier to monitor and enforce, but could result in either reduced revenue or increased costs for vessels that catch less than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallops on any trip, because the trip would have been considered to be used irrespective of amount landed. Another non-selected alternative would have established two permit tiers to which vessels would be assigned based on the level of historical scallop landings. Vessels that had historical landings of less than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) would have a possession limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg), while vessels that had historical landings greater than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) would have a scallop possession limit of 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip. The alternative did not restrict the number of trips that could be taken or pounds that could be landed by vessels within a tier. This alternative would have negative economic impacts on vessels that landed less than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) and would be restricted to a 200-lb (90.7-kg) possession limit because it would reduce landings from recent historical levels. The three-tiered allocation alternative would allocate equal pounds or trips to each vessel within one of three tiers based on the vessel's historical level of landings, with the pounds or trips allocated to each tier based on the average amount of scallops landed by vessels in each tier. As a result, this alternative would have negative impacts on a vessel in a tier that landed a higher amount of scallops than the average for the tier. The stand-alone alternative would allocate IFQ to a larger number of vessels, but would have negative distributional impacts on vessels that have had higher recent annual landings of scallops. Instead of individual allocation, the alternative that would establish a hard TAC with limited entry vessel permits could lead to a race to fish and market gluts. This could have negative economic impacts, especially on smaller vessels that fish seasonally and cannot access all areas due to the constraints on their capacity. A fleet-wide hard TAC allocated by trimester or by quarter would extend the fishing season and reduce negative impacts from derby fishing and market gluts, to some extent. These alternatives would have larger negative distributional impacts on some vessels compared to the proposed IFQ program, and other vessel allocation alternatives considered, because the opportunity to fish and land scallops would be dependent upon the level of fishing by other vessels. For example, a vessel may not get the opportunity to fish for scallops at all under a quarterly fleetwide TAC alternative if other general category vessels quickly harvest the entire TAC. If such a vessel had landings of scallops before Amendment 11, the vessel would experience scallop revenue losses compared to alternatives that would allow the vessel to fish for scallops regardless of the scallop fishing activity of other vessels. Limited Entry Permit Provisions Amendment 11 includes most of the provisions adopted in other limited access fisheries in the Northeast Region to govern the initial qualification process, future ownership changes, and vessel replacements. For the most part, there is no direct economic impact of these provisions. The nature of a limited access program requires rules for governing the transfer of limited access fishing permits. The procedures have been relatively standard for previous limited access programs, which makes it easier for a vessel owner issued permits for several limited access fisheries to undertake vessel transactions. The standard provisions adopted in Amendment 11 are those governing change in ownership; replacement vessels; CPH; abandonment or voluntary relinquishment of permits; and appeal of denial of permits. In addition, IFQ scallop vessels would be restricted to a cap on the amount of IFQ they could own. This ownership cap restriction is based on a similar ownership cap provision for current limited access vessels. This action would modify some of the other provisions for LAGC scallop vessels. LAGC scallop vessels would not have any vessel size and horsepower upgrade restrictions for vessel modifications or vessel replacements (unless the vessel has other limited access permits). This action would also allow a vessel owner to retain a general category scallop fishing history prior to the implementation of Amendment 11 to be eligible for issuance of the LAGC scallop permit based on the eligibility of the vessel that was sold, even if the vessel was sold with other limited access permits. Amendment 11 allows the general category fishing history to be retained and split from other limited access permits prior to the effective date of Amendment 11. This is a departure from other limited access permit programs that prohibit such histories from being split from other fishing history. Allowing the splitting avoids complicated ownership disputes between individuals that completed vessel sale transactions that effectively split fishing history before and during the development of Amendment 11. The economic impacts of the limited access permit provisions are analyzed in section 5.4.9 of the Amendment 11 document. Measures allowing vessel owners to appeal limited access permit denials would indirectly benefit all participants by ensuring that only those vessels that provide verification of permit and landings history would qualify and receive allocation based on accurate records. The proposed regulations regarding qualification with retained vessel histories would have positive economic impacts for participants that sold their vessel to another but retained the fishing history. The proposed action would allow a vessel owner to modify a LAGC scallop vessel's size or horsepower without any upgrade restriction, provided that there are no other limited access permits issued to the vessel. This would provide flexibility for the vessel owners to adjust their fishing power under changing fishery conditions. Flexibility with a vessel's size and horsepower could also improve safety at sea. Since the vessels would be allocated individual pounds, this is not expected to impact the total scallop landings or provide an unfair advantage to larger vessels. Amendment 11 would allow a vessel owner to obtain permanent or temporary transfers of IFQ, up to 2 percent of the total general category allocation per vessel. This would help vessel owners to maintain an economically viable operation if the allocations for separate vessels are too low to generate revenue to cover variable and fixed expenses. It could also allow a vessel owner to sell or lease a small IFQ to another vessel owner, which would generate income from the IFQ without operating costs. This measure, combined with a restriction that an individual could not have an ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the overall TAC, would also prevent a few individuals or corporations from dominating the fishery and would help to redistribute gains from the limited access more equitably among more fishermen. Non-preferred alternatives considered other ways to limit the accumulation of IFQ. One would have allowed two allocations only to be combined, and the other set a cap of 60,000 lb (27,216 kg) total allocation. The selected alternative provided more flexibility while maintaining an overall limit on the amount of IFQ that could be held by a single vessel. Non-preferred alternatives would have prohibited IFQ transfers, would have maintained vessel size and horsepower upgrade restrictions consistent with other limited access permits (allowed upgrades up to 10 percent in length, and gross and net tonnage, and 20 percent in horsepower), and would have prohibited IFQ transfers, providing less flexibility for vessel owners and reduced economic benefits. Sectors Amendment 11 proposes to allow participants in the IFQ scallop fishery to organize voluntary fishing sectors. Amendment 11 specifies sector requirements and the process through which proposals would be submitted to the Council and NMFS. Amendment 11 does not establish sectors—just the process under which future sectors could be proposed. The proposed sector process would provide an opportunity for fishermen to benefit from an economically viable operation when the allocations of individual vessels are too small to make scallop fishing profitable. In comparison, the only alternative to the proposed action would not allow the formation of sectors, decreasing flexibility and eliminating any possible future economic benefits of forming sectors. Measures for Transition to the IFQ Program Amendment 11 specifies measures that would be implemented for at least 1 year, while the eligibility process for IFQ scallop permits is underway to establish the fleet of IFQ scallop vessels. The economic impacts of the transition period alternatives are analyzed in section 5.4.12 of the Amendment 11 document. The proposed interim alternative would establish the following measures. These would help to prevent a short-term increase in overfishing of the scallop resource by limiting the general category landings to 10 percent of the total scallop landings through specification of a TAC. The proposed action would prevent further expansion in the general category catch and benefit the participants of the general category fishery by providing some adjustment time for general category vessels until the transition period is over. The allocation amounts for many IFQ scallop vessels are likely to be lower with the proposed 5-percent TAC for the IFQ fishery than their recent landings. Although management of the general category fishery by a fleetwide TAC during the transition period would create some derby fishing, the allocation of the total TAC into quarters would reduce derby effects to some extent, and lessen the negative economic impacts associated with derby fishing. A 10-percent fleetwide TAC may not constitute a significant constraint on recent landings, given that only those vessels that qualify for an IFQ permit, or that are under appeal for an IFQ permit, would be authorized to fish during the transition period. General category scallop landings by those vessels that had a permit before the control date were approximately 11 percent of total landings in 2005. An alternative was considered that would have established an annual fleetwide TAC. It was not selected because the Council believed it would increase the derby effect, with potential negative economic and safety implications. It would increase the likelihood that a vessel would not have the opportunity to fish for scallops because other vessels could rapidly harvest the TAC. Another alternative proposed that the transition year would have no TAC. It would eliminate the incentives for derby style fishing and the economic impacts of this alternative compared to the status quo would be negligible, provided participation by general category vessels that had a permit before the control date does not increase significantly above the recent levels. On the other hand, it is possible for the number of appeals to be greater than the number of vessels that fished during the recent years, resulting in more vessels participating in the fishery. If this were to happen, and the general category scallop landings increase above 10 percent of total scallop harvest, there could be short-term unexpected increase in fishing mortality on the scallop resource. NGOM Scallop Management Area Amendment 11 includes management measures specific to the NGOM scallop management area intended to allow a level of scallop fishing activity to occur outside of the constraints of the IFQ program and some other Amendment 11 provisions for general category vessels. Measures include the establishment of a TAC for the area derived from the Federal portion of the resource; a 200-lb (90.7-kg) possession limit for NGOM and IFQ scallop vessels; a restriction on dredge size; a restriction that catch by IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the area would be deducted from the IFQ scallop vessel's IFQ and from the NGOM TAC; trip declaration requirements; and a closure of the NGOM to all scallop vessels (including current limited access scallop vessels and Incidental scallop vessels) when the NGOM TAC is reached. The economic impacts of the NGOM Scallop Management Area are analyzed in section 5.4.14.4 of the Amendment 11 document. The proposed NGOM Scallop Management Area alternative would have positive economic impacts on a large number of vessels that are not estimated to qualify for the IFQ permit but that are estimated to qualify for an NGOM permit. These vessels would have an opportunity to land scallops in this area when the resource conditions are favorable. It would reduce the possession limit for NGOM and IFQ scallop vessels to 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip to reduce incentives for larger vessels targeting scallops in this area. Although reducing the possession limit would have negative economic impacts on some vessels, the majority of the active vessels that would qualify for the NGOM permit general category permit landed 200 lb (90.7 kg) or less of scallops from any one trip, therefore would not be negatively impacted from 200 lb (90.7 kg) possession limit. In comparison, the no action alternative would have had negative economic impacts for vessels that could not qualify for the IFQ scallop permit. Under one alternative, Amendment 11 provisions would not have applied to NGOM and the general category vessels would have retained the opportunity to fish for scallops in NGOM and land up to 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip. The lack of a TAC to limit landings, and the higher possession limit, would have had positive economic impacts on these vessels compared to the proposed alternative. On the other hand, because this alternative would let any vessel obtain a permit to fish in the area, it could lead to an influx of vessels from other areas to participate in the open access fishery in the NGOM. This would have negative impacts on the resource that made it unacceptable. Another alternative proposed that, to qualify for an NGOM scallop permit, a vessel would have to have landed 100 lb (45.4 kg) of scallops during the period March 1, 1994, through November 1, 2004. The NGOM TAC under this alternative would be based on all landings of scallops from the NGOM area (not exclusively the Federal portion of the resource, as in the proposed action). This alternative also would have allowed vessels to continue fishing for up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops after harvest of the NGOM TAC. This alternative would also provide an advantage to IFQ scallop vessels by allowing them to land 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip from this area, whereas NGOM scallop vessels could possess and land only up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip. This alternative was not adopted because the qualification criteria would have had very little restriction on participation, would have had excessive administrative costs, and would not promote conservation of the scallop resource within the Gulf of Maine or overall. While it would have qualified more vessels than the proposed measure, the economic opportunity for those vessels would have been diluted by a very large number of qualified vessels fishing for a relatively small TAC. The no action alternative for the NGOM Scallop Management Area would not distinguish this area from other areas, and all Amendment 11 measures would apply equally throughout the range of the scallop resource. It was not selected because it would have negative impacts on vessels that traditionally fish in the NGOM and that could not qualify for the IFQ permit. Monitoring Provisions The economic impacts of monitoring provisions proposed in Amendment 11 are analyzed in section 5.4.15 of the Amendment 11 document. Since general category vessels that land over 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops are already required to have a VMS onboard, the compliance costs of this action are not expected to be significant. Vessels operating in the Northeast multispecies fishery are also required to have operational VMS units. Some of these vessel also have general category scallop permits and would be expected to qualify for one of the LAGC scallop permits. The majority of general category scallop vessels currently operate VMS as required either by the scallop regulations or the Northeast multispecies fishery regulations. The non-selected IVR alternative does not have a distinct advantage compared to reporting through VMS. The no action alternative would not have the associated costs of reporting landings, but reporting of scallop catch for each trip is essential to monitor and enforce the IFQ and NGOM scallop fishery measures. Limited Access Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules Amendment 11 provides the opportunity for current limited access vessels ( *i.e.* , full-time, part-time, or occasional limited access scallop vessels) to also be issued a LAGC scallop permit, if the vessel meets the qualification criteria. The economic impacts of allowing limited access vessels to continue to fish under general category rules are analyzed in section 5.4.16.1 of the Amendment 11 document. The proposed action would have positive economic impacts on 57 limited access vessels (38 full-time, and 19 part-time and occasional) that Amendment 11 estimates would qualify for an IFQ scallop permit. One non-selected alternative would prevent any limited access vessel from having a general category permit and another would prevent current full-time limited access scallop vessels from fishing under general category rules. This would result in negative economic impacts compared to the proposed alternative for those vessels noted above that have a historical level of participation in the general category fishery while fishing outside of scallop DAS. Under the proposed allocation to LAGC scallop vessels, 0.5 percent of the overall scallop TAC would be allocated to vessels with IFQ scallop permits that also have been issued a full-time, part-time, or occasional limited access scallop permit. IFQs for these vessels would be determined from the 0.5-percent TAC allocation. Under the transition measure before the IFQ program is implemented, IFQ scallop vessels that have also been issued a full-time, part-time, or occasional limited access scallop permit would fish under the 10-percent TAC allocated to the general category fleet. The proposed action would have positive economic impacts on those vessels. The 0.5-percent TAC for the limited access qualifiers is less than the percentage share of these vessels in total general category scallop landings in recent years, but almost equal to what was reported in FY 2004. Under one alternative, scallops landed by limited access vessels under general category rules would be deducted from the 5-percent TAC allocated to the IFQ vessels, negatively impacting the general category vessels that qualify for limited access, with small positive economic impacts on the limited access scallop fleet. This alternative was therefore not selected, and the separate 0.5-percent TAC is proposed. Allocation Between Limited Access and General Category Fisheries The Council considered alternative values for the TAC that would be allocated to IFQ scallop vessels (excluding IFQ scallop vessels also issued a full-time, part-time, or occasional limited access scallop permit), equal to 2.5, 5.0, 7.0, 10.0, and 11.0 percent of the overall projected scallop catch. The economic impacts of the various levels of TAC allocation between the limited access and LAGC fishery are analyzed in section 5.4.17 of the Amendment 11 document and have different distributional impacts. The proposed 5-percent general category TAC would have negative economic impacts on many general category vessels compared to status quo management because the fishery landed twice that level in both FY 2005 and FY 2006. On the other hand, the 5-percent TAC is higher than the long-term average percentage share of total scallop landings for the general category scallop fishery, which is 2.5 percent of overall scallop landings. The 5-percent allocation corresponds to the highest level reached by the general category fishery before the control date. Therefore, this allocation is consistent with the Council's decision in 2004 to implement a control date, recognizing that the substantial increase in general category fishing effort could lead to overfishing of the scallop resource and reduce economic benefits for everyone in the fishery. The short-term and long-term economic impacts of the 5-percent TAC, combined with the limited entry program, compared to other alternative allocation amounts are discussed extensively above and are not repeated here. The proposed action includes several measures that could mitigate some of the adverse economic impacts of the limited access program for general category, including the 5-percent TAC. The separate limited entry program for the NGOM is expected to provide an opportunity for owners of vessels that would not qualify for the IFQ scallop permit, but who have historically participated in the NGOM scallop fishery, to fish for scallops at a reduced scale (at a lower possession limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip) when the resource conditions in this area become favorable. The incidental catch permit would provide opportunity for the vessels that land scallops occasionally up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) per trip, including some vessels that qualify for limited access but that received allocations lower than what they could land annually with the incidental permit. Furthermore, Amendment 11 includes a provision to allow vessel owners to combine IFQ allocations through the IFQ transfer program, up to 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop fishery, so that vessel owners can buy or lease additional IFQ. Similarly, the proposed action to establish a process for sectors in the general category fishery would provide an opportunity for fishermen to benefit from an economically viable operation when the allocations of individual vessels are too small to make scallop fishing profitable. A lower TAC for general category would have larger negative proportional impacts on general category vessels while potentially increasing the revenues of the limited access fishery by a small percentage. A higher percentage TAC would reduce the negative impacts on general category vessels, but would lower the positive economic impacts on the current limited access. Incidental Catch Permit The economic impacts of the proposed Incidental catch permit are analyzed in section 5.4.18 of the Amendment 11 document. The proposed action would create an incidental catch permit for vessels to retain and sell up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallop meats per trip, provided they had been issued a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004. The economic impacts of this alternative would be positive on vessels that do not qualify for the IFQ permit because it would allow them to still earn some income from scallops under the incidental catch permit. This measure could also benefit some vessels that qualify for the IFQ permit with low allocations. The owner of such a vessel might elect the Incidental scallop permit because the vessel could land more total pounds of scallops on several 40-lb (18.1-kg) trips than it could under its IFQ. The only other alternative considered was no action, which would allow vessels to possess and land, but not sell, an incidental catch of scallops. This alternative would not provide any source of revenue for vessels that do not qualify for the IFQ or NGOM scallop permit. It also would complicate the Council's and NMFS's ability to determine the overall level of scallop catch from a fleet of vessels without scallop permits because none of the reporting and compliance measures would apply to non-permitted vessels. This could result in more cautious management measures in the future, with possible negative economic impacts on all vessels issued scallop permits. Changing of the Issuance Date of General Category Permits Amendment 11 proposes to change the permit issuance date for general category scallop permits from May 1 to March 1, to better align the general category scallop fishery with the scallop fishing year of March 1 through February 28/29. The economic impacts of changing the date that general category permits are issued are analyzed in section 5.4.19 of the Amendment 11 document. Changing the general category permit to March 1 is an administrative change and procedural adjustment for owners accustomed to a May 1 permit renewal. The proposed measure would allow, however, better estimation of the number of participants, the level of effort in the fishery and allocation of TAC by aligning the issuance date with date for the limited access fishery. As a result, the proposed action would have indirect positive economic impacts on the sea scallop fishery. The Council considered revising the start of the fishing year to May 1 or August 1. This would have had some positive impacts over the long term by better aligning the fishing year with the scallop survey, resulting in updated information on which to base the following year's management. This would increase the confidence in the effectiveness of scallop fishery management measures relative to the scallop fishing mortality goals of the FMP. On the other hand, these alternatives were strongly opposed by the scallop industry because it would require a change in the business plans of the scallop vessel owners. Other Measures Included in Amendment 11 Amendment 11 proposes two changes to scallop regulations, including a clarification that the maximum sweep length for trawl gear under the FMP would not apply to vessels fishing for Northeast multispecies or monkfish, and an allowance for general category vessels to possess up to 100 bu (35.2 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line. The economic impacts of these measures are analyzed in sections 5.4.20 and 5.4.21 of the Amendment 11 document. Clarification of trawl gear restriction for vessels fishing under a multispecies or monkfish DAS would have positive economic impacts on those general category vessels that catch scallops only incidentally, compared to no action. Setting the possession limit at 100 bu (35.2 hL) seaward of the demarcation line would have positive economic impacts on the general category vessels when they catch scallops with lower meat yield. The only alternative to both of these measures is the no action alternative, which does not provide the benefits of the proposed action noted above. Change to Ownership Cap Restriction To Account for CPHs This final rule includes a change to the ownership cap restriction for current limited access scallop vessels to clarify that the regulation was intended to apply to limited access scallop permits and CPHs. Currently, if a vessel owner has been issued a CPH, that owner cannot activate that CPH on a vessel if he/she already owns 5 percent of the limited access scallop permits. That owner would therefore have to sell a vessel to activate the CPH. This clarification of the ownership cap to include CPH's does not change this, or the economic impacts of the ownership cap restrictions. There are no alternatives to clarifying the regulation, since the result would be that the scallop regulations would continue to be inconsistent with the intent of the original ownership cap restrictions included in the FMP. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide was prepared. The guide will be sent to all holders of permits issued for the Atlantic scallop fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide ( *i.e.* , permit holder letter) are available from the Regional Administrator and are also available from NMFS, Northeast Region (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: April 7, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.2, definitions for “limited access general category

(LAGC)scallop vessel” and “limited access scallop vessel” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 648.2 Definitions. *Limited access general category

(LAGC)scallop vessel* means a vessel that has been issued an individual fishing quota (IFQ), Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM), or incidental catch LAGC scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii). An LAGC scallop vessel may also be issued a limited access scallop permit. *Limited access scallop vessel* means a vessel that has been issued a limited access full-time, part-time, or occasional scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i). A limited access scallop vessel may also be issued an LAGC scallop permit. 3. In § 648.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(I)( *3* ), (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(i) introductory text, (a)(2)(i)(M)( *1* ), (a)(2)(i)(M)( *2* ), (a)(2)(i)(O), (a)(2)(ii), and (e)(iv) are revised, and paragraph (a)(2)(i)(P) is added to read as follows: § 648.4 Vessel permits.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)* * *

(I)* * * ( *3* ) With the exception of combination vessels, a vessel issued a limited access sea scallop dredge permit pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is not eligible for limited access multispecies permits. This restriction is not applicable to vessels issued an LAGC scallop permit pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, unless such vessel has also been issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

(2)*Atlantic sea scallop vessels* —Any vessel of the United States that fishes for, possesses, or lands Atlantic sea scallops, except vessels that fish exclusively in state waters for scallops, must have been issued and carry on board a valid scallop vessel permit pursuant to this section.

(i)*Limited access scallop permits.* Any vessel of the United States that possesses or lands more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked scallops, or 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops per trip, or possesses more than 100 bu (35.2 hL) seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line, except vessels that fish exclusively in state waters for scallops, must have been issued and carry on board a valid limited access scallop permit.

(M)* * * ( *1* ) For any vessel acquired after March 1, 1994, a vessel owner is not eligible to be issued a limited access scallop permit for the vessel, and/or a confirmation of permit history, if, as a result of the issuance of the permit and/or confirmation of permit history, the vessel owner, or any other person who is a shareholder or partner of the vessel owner, will have an ownership interest in a total number of limited access scallop vessels and limited access scallop confirmations of permit history in excess of 5 percent of the number of all limited access scallop vessels and confirmations of permit history at the time of permit application. ( *2* ) Vessel owners who were initially issued a 1994 limited access scallop permit or confirmation of permit history, or who were issued or renewed a limited access scallop permit or confirmation of permit history for a vessel in 1995 and thereafter, in compliance with the ownership restrictions in paragraph (a)(2)(i)( *M* )(1) of this section, are eligible to renew such permits(s) and/or confirmation(s) of permit history, regardless of whether the renewal of the permits or confirmations of permit history will result in the 5-percent ownership restriction being exceeded.

(O)*Replacement vessels.* See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E) of this section.

(P)*VMS requirement.* A vessel issued a limited access scallop permit, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, except a vessel issued an occasional scallop permit that is not fishing in a sea scallop access area, must have an operational VMS installed. Prior to issuance of a limited access scallop permit, NMFS must receive a signed VMS certification from the vessel owner and be notified by the VMS vendor that the unit has been installed and is operational.

(ii)*LAGC scallop permits.* Any vessel of the United States that has not been issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and any vessel issued a limited access scallop permit that fishes for scallops outside of the scallop DAS program described in § 648.53(b) or the Area Access program described in § 648.60, that possesses, retains, or lands scallops in or from Federal waters, must be issued an LAGC scallop permit and must comply with the permit requirements described in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A), (B), or

(C)of this section. To be issued an LAGC scallop permit, a vessel owner must meet the qualification criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(D) or

(F)of this section and must comply with the application procedures specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(H) of this section.

(A)*Individual fishing quota LAGC permit.* To possess or land up to 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked meats, or 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops per trip, or possess up to 100 bu (35.2 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line, a vessel must have been issued an individual fishing quota LAGC scallop permit (IFQ scallop permit). Issuance of an initial IFQ scallop permit is contingent upon the vessel owner submitting the required application and other information that demonstrates that the vessel meets the eligibility criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.

(B)*Northern Gulf of Maine LAGC permit.* To possess or land up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.81 hL) in-shell scallops per trip, or to possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) seaward of the VMS demarcation line in the NGOM Scallop Management Area, a vessel must have been issued a Northern Gulf of Maine LAGC scallop permit (NGOM scallop permit). A vessel issued a NGOM scallop permit may not fish for scallops outside of the NGOM Scallop Management Area as defined in § 648.62, and may not possess or land more than 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.81 hL) of in-shell scallops at any time, except the vessel may possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line. Issuance of an initial NGOM scallop permit is contingent upon the vessel owner submitting the required application and other information that demonstrates that the vessel meets the eligibility criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F) of this section.

(C)*Incidental catch LAGC permit.* To possess or land up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked or 5 bu (1.76 hL) in-shell scallops per trip, or possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) in-shell scallops per trip seaward of the VMS demarcation line, but not more than these amounts per trip, a vessel must have been issued an incidental catch general category scallop permit (Incidental scallop permit). A vessel issued an incidental catch general scallop permit may not possess or land more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops at any time, except the vessel may possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line. Issuance of an initial incidental catch category scallop permit is contingent upon the vessel owner submitting the required application and other information that demonstrates that the vessel meets the eligibility criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(G) of this section.

(D)*Eligibility for an IFQ scallop permit.* A vessel is eligible for and may be issued an IFQ scallop permit if it meets both eligibility criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(D)( *1* ) and ( *2* ) of this section, or is replacing a vessel that meets both the eligibility criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(D)( *1* ) and ( *2* ) of this section. A vessel owner may appeal NMFS's determination that a vessel does not meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(D)( *1* ) and ( *2* ) of this section by complying with the appeal process, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(O) of this section. ( *1* ) *Permit criterion.* A vessel must have been issued a general category scallop permit in at least one scallop fishing year, as defined in § 648.2, between March 1, 2000, and November 1, 2004. ( *2* ) *Landings criterion.* A vessel must have landed at least 1,000 lb (454 kg) of shucked scallops in any one year when the vessel also held a general category scallop permit as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D)( *1* ) of this section. To qualify, scallop landings in the 2004 fishing year must have occurred on or before November 1, 2004. NMFS dealer data shall be used to make the initial determination of vessel eligibility. If a dealer reported more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallops on a trip, only 400 lb (181.4 kg) will be credited toward the landings criteria. For dealer reports that indicate that the landings were bushels of in-shell scallops, a conversion of 8 lb (3.63 kg) of scallop meats per bushel will be used to calculate meat-weight, up to the maximum of 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip. For dealer reports that indicate that the landings were reported in pounds of in-shell scallops are converted to meat-weight using the formula of 8.33 lb (3.78 kg) of scallop meats for each pound of in-shell scallops, up to the maximum of 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip, for qualification purposes.

(E)*Contribution factor for determining a vessel's IFQ.* An eligible IFQ scallop vessel's best year of scallop landings during the qualification period of March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, as specified in § 648.53(h)(2)(ii)(a), and the vessel's number of years active, as specified in § 648.53(h)(2)(ii)(B), shall be used to calculate a vessel's contribution factor, as specified in § 648.53(h)(2)(ii)(C). A vessel owner that has applied for an IFQ scallop permit will be notified of the vessel's contribution factor at the time of issuance of the IFQ scallop permit, consistent with confidentiality restrictions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specified at 16 U.S.C. 1881a. A vessel owner may appeal NMFS's determination of the IFQ scallop vessel's contribution factor by complying with the appeal process as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(O) of this section.

(F)*Eligibility for NGOM or Incidental scallop permit.* A vessel that is not eligible for, or for which the vessel's owner chooses not to apply for, an IFQ scallop permit, may be issued either a NGOM scallop permit or an Incidental scallop permit if the vessel was issued a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004, or if the vessel is replacing a vessel that was issued a general category scallop permit as of November 1, 2004. A vessel owner may appeal NMFS's determination that a vessel does not meet this criterion by complying with the appeal process as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(O) of this section. A vessel that qualifies for an IFQ scallop permit automatically qualifies for an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit if the vessel's owner chooses to be issued an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit instead of the IFQ scallop permit.

(G)*LAGC permit restrictions* —( *1* ) *Change of permit category.* —( *i* ) *IFQ scallop permit.* A vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit may not change its general category scallop permit category at any time without voluntarily relinquishing its IFQ scallop permit eligibility as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(M) of this section. If the vessel owner has elected to relinquish the vessel's IFQ permit and instead be issued an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit, the IFQ permit shall be permanently relinquished. ( *ii* ) *NGOM and Incidental scallop permit.* A vessel may be issued either an NGOM or Incidental scallop permit for each fishing year, and a vessel owner may not change his/her LAGC scallop permit category during the fishing year, except as specified in this paragraph, (a)(2)(ii)(G)( *1* )( *ii* ). The owners of a vessel issued an NOGM or Incidental scallop permit must elect a permit category in the vessel's permit application and shall have one opportunity each fishing year to request a change in its permit category by submitting an application to the Regional Administrator within 45 days of the effective date of the vessel's permit. After that date, the vessel must remain in that permit category for the duration of the fishing year. ( *2* ) *VMS requirement.* A vessel issued a LAGC permit must have an operational VMS installed. Issuance of an Atlantic sea scallop permit requires the vessel owner to submit a copy of the vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation from a NMFS-approved VMS vendor as described in § 648.9.

(H)*Application/renewal restrictions.* See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this section. Applications for an LAGC permit described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section must be postmarked no later than August 30, 2008. Applications for LAGC permits that are not postmarked on or before August 30, 2008, may be denied and returned to the sender with a letter explaining the denial. Such denials may not be appealed and shall be the final decision of the Department of Commerce.

(I)*Qualification restriction.* ( *1* ) See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section for restrictions applicable to limited access scallop permits. ( *2* ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(i)(L) of this section, scallop landings history generated by separate owners of a single vessel at different times during the qualification period for LAGC scallop permits may be used to qualify more than one vessel, provided that each owner applying for an LAGC scallop permit demonstrates that he/she created distinct fishing histories, that such histories have been retained, and if the vessel was sold, that each applicant's eligibility and fishing history is distinct. ( *3* ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(i)(L) of this section, a vessel owner applying for a LAGC permit who sold or transferred a vessel with non-scallop limited access permits, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of this section, and retained only the general category scallop history of such vessel as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of this section, before April 14, 2008, may use the general category scallop history to qualify a different vessel for the initial IFQ scallop permit, regardless of whether the history from the sold or transferred vessel was used to qualify another vessel for another limited access permit.

(J)*Change in ownership.* See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) of this section.

(K)*Replacement vessels.* A vessel owner may apply to replace a qualified LAGC vessel with another vessel that he/she owns. There are no size or horsepower restrictions on replacing general LAGC vessels, unless the qualified vessel that will be replaced is subject to such restriction because of other limited access permits issued pursuant to § 648.4. In order for a LAGC that also has other limited access permits issued pursuant to § 648.4 to be replaced by a vessel that does not meet the replacement and upgrade restrictions specified for those other limited access permits, the other limited access permits must be permanently relinquished, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(K) of this section.

(L)*Confirmation of Permit History.* See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(J) of this section.

(M)*Abandonment or voluntary relinquishment of permits.* See paragraph (a)(1)(i)(K) of this section.

(N)*Restriction on permit splitting.* Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(I)( *2* ) and ( *3* ) of this section, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(L) of this section applies.

(O)*Appeal of denial of permit* —( *1* ) *Eligibility.* Any applicant eligible to apply for an LAGC scallop permit who is denied such permit may appeal the denial to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the notice of denial. Any such appeal may only be based on the grounds that the information used by the Regional Administrator was incorrect. The appeal must be in writing, must state the specific grounds for the appeal, and must include information to support the appeal. ( *2* ) *Contribution factor appeals.* Any applicant eligible to apply for a IFQ scallop permit who disputes NMFS's determination of the vessel's contribution factor specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E) of this section may appeal NMFS's determination to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the notification of the vessel's best year and years active. Any such appeal may only be based on the grounds that the information used by the Regional Administrator was incorrect. The appeal must be in writing, must state the specific grounds for the appeal, and must include information to support the appeal. A vessel owner may appeal both the eligibility criteria and the contribution factor and must submit the appeal for both at the same time. An appeal of contribution factor determinations shall be reviewed concurrently with an eligibility appeal, if applicable. ( *3* ) *Appeal review.* The Regional Administrator shall appoint a designee who shall make the initial decision on the appeal. The appellant may request a review of the initial decision by the Regional Administrator by so requesting in writing within 30 days of the notice of the initial decision. If the appellant does not request a review of the initial decision within 30 days, the initial decision is the final administrative action of the Department of Commerce. Such review will be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the Regional Administrator. The hearing officer shall make findings and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator, which shall be advisory only. Upon receiving the findings and the recommendation, the Regional Administrator shall issue a final decision on the appeal. The Regional Administrator's decision is the final administrative action of the Department of Commerce. ( *4* ) *Status of vessels pending appeal.* A vessel denied an LAGC scallop permit may fish while under appeal, provided that the denial has been appealed, the appeal is pending, and the vessel has on board a letter from the Regional Administrator temporarily authorizing the vessel to fish under the limited access general category permit. The Regional Administrator shall issue such a letter that shall be effective only during the pendency of any appeal. The temporary letter of authorization must be carried on board the vessel and all requirements of the permit category for which the appeal has been made shall apply. If the appeal is finally denied, the Regional Administrator shall send a notice of final denial to the vessel owner; the temporary authorizing letter becomes invalid 5 days after receipt of the notice of denial, but no later than 10 days from the date of the letter of denial, regardless of the date of the owner's receipt of the denial.

(e)* * *

(1)* * *

(iv)An applicant for a limited access multispecies combination vessel or individual DAS permit, a limited access scallop permit (except an occasional scallop permit), an LAGC scallop permit, or electing to use a VMS, has failed to meet all of the VMS requirements specified in §§ 648.9 and 648.10; or 4. In § 648.5, paragraph

(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.5 Operator permits.

(a)*General.* Any operator of a vessel fishing for or possessing: Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or Atlantic bluefish, harvested in or from the EEZ; tilefish harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Tilefish Management Unit; skates harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit; or Atlantic deep-sea red crab harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Red Crab Management Unit, issued a permit, including carrier and processing permits, for these species under this part, must have been issued under this section, and carry on board, a valid operator permit. An operator's permit issued pursuant to part 622 or part 697 of this chapter satisfies the permitting requirement of this section. This requirement does not apply to operators of recreational vessels. 5. In § 648.9, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(2)(i)(D) are revised to read as follows: § 648.9 VMS requirements.

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(iii)At least twice per hour, 24 hrs. a day, throughout the year, for vessels issued a scallop permit and subject to the requirements of § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(B).

(2)* * *

(i)* * *

(D)The vessel has been issued an LAGC scallop permit, is not in possession of any scallops onboard the vessel, is tied to a permanent dock or mooring, the vessel operator has notified NMFS through VMS by transmitting the appropriate VMS power-down code that the VMS will be powered down, and the vessel is not required by other permit requirements for other fisheries to transmit the vessel's location at all times. Such a vessel must repower the VMS and submit a valid VMS activity declaration prior to moving from the fixed dock or mooring. VMS codes and instructions are available from the Regional Administrator upon request. 6. In § 648.10, paragraphs (b)(1)(i), and

(c)introductory text are revised; paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and

(iv)are removed and reserved; and paragraphs (b)(2)(i), and (ii), and (b)(4)(i) through

(iv)are added to read as follows: § 648.10 DAS and VMS notification requirements.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)A scallop vessel issued a Full-time or Part-time limited access scallop permit or an LAGC scallop permit; (iii)-(iv) [Reserved]

(2)* * *

(i)A vessel subject to the VMS requirements of § 648.9 and this paragraph

(b)that has crossed the VMS Demarcation Line specified under paragraph

(a)of this section is deemed to be fishing under the DAS program, the general category scallop fishery, or other fishery requiring the operation of VMS as applicable, unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop, NE multispecies, or monkfish fishery, as applicable, for a specific time period by notifying NMFS by transmitting the appropriate VMS code through the VMS, or unless the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel will be fishing in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area as described in § 648.85(a)(3)(ii) under the provisions of that program.

(ii)Notification that the vessel is not fishing under the DAS program, the general category scallop fishery, or other fishery requiring the operation of VMS, must be received prior to the vessel leaving port. A vessel may not change its status after the vessel leaves port or before it returns to port on any fishing trip.

(4)* * *

(i)*IFQ scallop vessels.* An IFQ scallop vessel that has crossed the VMS Demarcation Line specified under paragraph

(a)of this section is deemed to be fishing under the IFQ program, unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop fishery ( *i.e.* , the vessel will not possess, retain, or land scallops) for a specific time period by notifying the Regional Administrator through the VMS. An IFQ scallop vessel that is fishing north of 42°20′ N. lat. is deemed to be fishing under the NGOM scallop fishery unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop fishery as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(ii)of this section, and the vessel does not possess, retain, or land scallops.

(ii)*NGOM scallop fishery.* An NGOM scallop vessel is deemed to be fishing under the NGOM scallop fishery unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel out of all fisheries as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(ii)of this section, and the vessel does not possess, retain, or land scallops.

(iii)*Incidental scallop fishery.* An Incidental scallop vessel that has crossed the demarcation line on any declared fishing trip for any species is deemed to be fishing under the Incidental scallop fishery unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares the vessel out of all fisheries as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(ii)of this section, and the vessel does not possess, retain, or land scallops.

(iv)*Catch reports.* All scallop vessels fishing in the Sea Scallop Area Access Program as described in § 648.60 are required to submit a daily report through VMS of scallops kept and yellowtail flounder caught (including discarded yellowtail flounder) on each Access Area trip. The VMS catch reporting requirements are specified in § 648.60(a)(9). A vessel issued an IFQ or NGOM scallop permit must report through VMS the amount of scallops kept on each trip declared as a scallop trip or on trips that are not declared through VMS as a scallop trip, but on which scallops are caught incidentally. VMS catch reports by IFQ and NGOM scallop vessels must be sent prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on the way into port at the end of the trip and must include the amount of scallop meats to be landed, the estimated time of arrival in port, the port at which the scallops will be landed, and the vessel trip report serial number recorded from that trip's vessel trip report.

(c)*Call-in notification.* The owner of a vessel issued a limited access monkfish or red crab permit who is participating in a DAS program and who is not required to provide notification using a VMS, and a scallop vessel qualifying for a DAS allocation under the occasional category that has not elected to fish under the VMS notification requirements of paragraph

(b)of this section and is not participating in the Sea Scallop Area Access program as specified in § 648.60, and any vessel that may be required by the Regional Administrator to use the call-in program under paragraph

(d)of this section, are subject to the following requirements: 7. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(56), (a)(57), (a)(61), (f), (h)(1), (h)(6), (h)(9), (h)(20), (h)(27), (i), and

(s)are revised, and paragraphs (a)(180) and (h)(28) are added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a)* * *

(56)Fish for, possess, or land, scallops without the vessel having been issued and carrying onboard a valid scallop permit in accordance with § 648.4(a)(2), unless the scallops were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a Federal scallop permit and fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters;

(57)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time prior to a transfer to another person for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport:

(i)In excess of 40 lb (18.1 kg) shucked scallops at any time, 5 bu (1.76 hl) in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS Demarcation Line, or 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line, unless:

(A)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a scallop permit and fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters;

(B)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an IFQ scallop permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(A) and is properly declared into the IFQ scallop fishery;

(C)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an NGOM scallop permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(B), and is properly declared into the NGOM scallop management area, and the NGOM TAC specified in § 648.62 has not been harvested; or

(D)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an Incidental scallop permit allowing up to 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops, is carrying an at-sea observer, and is authorized by the Regional Administrator to have an increased possession limit to compensate for the cost of carrying the observer.

(ii)In excess of 200 lb (90.7 kg) shucked scallops at any time, 25 bu (8.8 hl) in-shell scallops inside the VMS Demarcation Line, or 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line, unless:

(A)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a scallop permit and fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters;

(B)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board a limited access scallop permit and is properly declared into the scallop DAS or Area Access program;

(C)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an IFQ scallop permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(A), is fishing outside of the NGOM scallop management area, and is properly declared into the general category scallop fishery;

(D)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board a scallop permit and the vessel is fishing in accordance with the provisions of the state waters exemption program specified in § 648.54; or

(E)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an NGOM scallop permit allowing up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.8 hL) of in-shell scallops, is carrying an at-sea observer, and is authorized by the Regional Administrator to have an increased possession limit to compensate for the cost of carrying the observer.

(iii)In excess of 400 lb (181.4 kg) shucked scallops at any time, 50 bu (17.6 hl) in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS Demarcation Line, or 100 bu (35.2 hL) in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line, unless:

(A)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a scallop permit and fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters.

(B)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board a limited access scallop permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i) and is properly declared into the scallop DAS or Area Access program;

(C)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board a scallop permit and the vessel is fishing in accordance with the provisions of the state waters exemption program specified in § 648.54; or

(D)The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an IFQ scallop permit, is carrying an at-sea observer, and is authorized by the Regional Administrator to have an increased possession limit to compensate for the cost of carrying the observer.

(61)Sell, barter or trade, or otherwise transfer, or attempt to sell, barter or trade, or otherwise transfer, for a commercial purpose, scallops, unless the vessel has been issued a valid scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2), or the scallops were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a scallop permit and fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters.

(180)Fail to comply with the requirements and restrictions for general category scallop sectors specified in § 648.63.

(f)In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraph

(a)of this section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued a scallop permit under § 648.4(a)(2) to land, or possess at or after landing, in-shell scallops smaller than the minimum shell height specified in § 648.50(a).

(h)* * *

(1)Fish for, possess, or land scallops after using up the vessel's annual DAS allocation and Access Area trip allocations, or when not properly declared into the DAS or Area Access program pursuant to § 648.10, unless the vessel has been issued an LAGC scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii), has properly declared into a general category scallop fishery, and does not exceed the allowed possession limit for the LAGC scallop permit issued to the vessel as specified in § 648.52, or unless exempted from DAS allocations as provided in § 648.54.

(6)Have an ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the total number of vessels issued limited access scallop permits and confirmations of permit history, except as provided in § 648.4(a)(2)(i)(M).

(9)Possess more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked, or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops, or participate in the scallop DAS or Area Access programs, while in the possession of trawl nets that have a maximum sweep exceeding 144 ft (43.9 m), as measured by the total length of the footrope that is directly attached to the webbing of the net, except as specified in § 648.51(a)(1), unless the vessel is fishing under the Northeast multispecies or monkfish DAS program.

(20)Fail to comply with any requirement for participating in the State Waters Exemption Program specified in § 648.54.

(27)Possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops, as specified in § 648.52(f), outside the boundaries of the Elephant Trunk Access Area specified in § 648.59(e) by a vessel that is properly declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area under the Area Access Program as specified in § 648.60.

(28)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time, scallops in the NGOM scallop management area after notification in the **Federal Register** that the NGOM scallop management area TAC has been harvested, as specified in § 648.62, unless the vessel possesses or lands scallops that were harvested south of 42°20′ N. lat., the vessel is transiting the NGOM scallop management area, and the vessel's fishing gear is properly stowed and unavailable for immediate use in accordance with § 648.23.

(i)*LAGC scallop vessels* .

(1)In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraphs (a), (f), and

(g)of this section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued an LAGC scallop permit to do any of the following:

(i)Fail to comply with the LAGC scallop permit restrictions as specified in § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(G) through (O);

(ii)Land scallops on more than one trip per calendar day;

(iii)Possess in-shell scallops while in possession of the maximum allowed amount of shucked scallops specified for each LAGC scallop permit category in § 648.62;

(iv)Fish for, possess, or land scallops on a vessel that is declared out of scallop fishing unless the vessel has been issued an Incidental scallop permit;

(v)Possess or use trawl gear that does not comply with any of the provisions or specifications in § 648.51(a), unless the vessel is fishing under the Northeast multispecies or monkfish DAS program;

(vi)Possess or use dredge gear that does not comply with any of the provisions or specifications in § 648.51(b);

(vii)Refuse, or fail, to carry an observer after being requested to carry an observer by the Regional Administrator or designee;

(viii)Fail to provide an observer with required food, accommodations, access, and assistance, as specified in § 648.11;

(ix)Fail to comply with the notification requirements specified in § 648.11(g)(2) or refuse or fail to carry an observer after being requested to carry an observer by the Regional Administrator or Regional Administrator's designee;

(x)Fail to comply with any of the VMS requirements specified in §§ 648.10 and 648.60;

(xi)Fail to comply with any requirement for declaring in or out of the general category scallop fishery or other notification requirements specified in § 648.10(b);

(xii)Fail to comply with any of the requirements specified in § 648.60;

(xiii)Declare into or leave port for an area specified in § 648.59(b) through

(d)after the effective date of the notification published in the **Federal Register** stating that the general category scallop TAC has been harvested as specified in § 648.60;

(xiv)Declare into, or leave port for, an area specified in § 648.59(b) through

(d)after the effective date of the notification published in the **Federal Register** stating that the number of general category trips have been taken as specified in § 648.60;

(xv)Declare into, or leave port for, an area specified in § 648.59(b) through

(d)after the effective date of the notification published in the **Federal Register** stating that the yellowtail flounder TAC has been harvested as specified in § 648.85(c);

(xvi)Declare into, or leave port for, the NGOM scallop management area specified in § 648.62 after the effective date of the notification published in the **Federal Register** stating that the general category scallop TAC has been harvested as specified in § 648.62;

(xvii)Fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the NGOM scallop management area after the effective date of the notification published in the **Federal Register** that the NGOM scallop management area TAC has been harvested, as specified in § 648.62, unless the vessel possesses or lands scallops that were harvested south of 42° 20′ N. Lat., the vessel is transiting the NGOM scallop management area, and the vessel's fishing gear is properly stowed and unavailable for immediate use in accordance with § 648.23; (xviii) Fail to comply with any of the requirements and restrictions for general category sectors and harvesting cooperatives specified in § 648.63; or

(xix)Fish for, land, or possess scallops at any time after 10 days from being notified that his or her appeal for an LAGC scallop permit has been denied and that the denial is the final decision of the Department of Commerce.

(2)In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraphs (a), (f), and

(g)of this section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit to do any of the following:

(i)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time, in excess of 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked, or 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops, unless the vessel is participating in the Area Access Program specified in § 648.60, is carrying an observer as specified in § 648.11, and an increase in the possession limit is authorized as specified in § 648.60(d)(2);

(ii)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time, in excess of 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.8 hl) of in-shell scallops in the NGOM scallop management area, unless the vessel is seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line and in possession of no more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) in-shell scallops, when not declared into the NGOM scallop management area, or is transiting the NGOM scallop management area with gear properly stowed and unavailable for immediate use in accordance with § 648.23;

(iii)Possess more than 100 bu (35.2 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line, or possess, or land per trip, more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS demarcation line, unless exempted from DAS allocations as provided in § 648.54;

(iv)Possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops, as specified in § 648.52(d), outside the boundaries of the Elephant Trunk Access Area specified in § 648.59(e) by a vessel that is properly declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area under the Area Access Program as specified in § 648.60;

(v)Fish for, possess, or land scallops after the effective date of the notification in the **Federal Register** that the quarterly TAC specified in § 648.53(a)(8) has been harvested;

(vi)Fish for, possess, or land scallops in excess of a vessel's IFQ;

(vii)Have an ownership interest in vessels that collectively is more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop TAC specified in accordance with § 648.53(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), except as provided in § 648.4(h)(3)(ii);

(viii)Have an IFQ allocation on an IFQ scallop vessel of more than 2 percent of the total IFQ scallop TAC specified in accordance with § 648.53(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), except as provided in § 648.4(h)(3)(i);

(ix)Apply for an IFQ transfer that will result in the transferee having an aggregate ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop TAC, except as provided in § 648.53(h)(3)(ii).

(x)Apply for an IFQ transfer that will result in the receiving vessel having an IFQ allocation in excess of 2 percent of the total IFQ scallop TAC, except as provided in § 648.53(h)(3)(i);

(xi)Fish for, possess, or land transferred IFQ prior to approval of the transfer by the Regional Administrator as specified in § 648.53(h)(5)(iv)(B);

(xii)Provide false information in relation to or on an application for an IFQ transfer required under § 648.53(h)(5)(iv);

(xiii)Request to transfer IFQ that has already been temporarily transferred from an IFQ scallop vessel in the same fishing year;

(xiv)Transfer scallop IFQ to another IFQ scallop vessel after the transferring vessel has landed scallops;

(xv)Transfer a portion of a vessel's scallop IFQ; or

(xvi)Transfer scallop IFQ to, or receive scallop IFQ on, a vessel that has not been issued a valid IFQ scallop permit.

(3)In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraphs (a), (f), and

(g)of this section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued an NGOM scallop permit to do any of the following:

(i)Declare into or leave port for a scallop trip, or fish for or possess scallops outside of the NGOM Scallop Management Area as defined in § 648.62;

(ii)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time, in excess of 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.81 hl) of in-shell scallops in or from the NGOM scallop management area, except when seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line and in possession of no more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) in-shell scallops; or

(iii)Fish for, possess, or land scallops after the effective date of notification in the **Federal Register** that the NGOM scallop management area TAC has been harvested.

(4)In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraphs (a), (f), and

(g)of this section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued an Incidental scallop permit to fish for, possess, or retain, more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked scallops, or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops, except the vessel may possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops while seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line.

(s)Any person fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops at or prior to the time when those scallops are received or possessed by a dealer, is subject to all of the scallop prohibitions specified in this section, unless the scallops were harvested by a vessel without a scallop permit that fishes for scallops exclusively in state waters. 8. In § 648.51, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to read as follows: § 648.51 Gear and crew restrictions.

(a)* * *

(1)*Maximum sweep* . The trawl sweep of nets shall not exceed 144 ft (43.9 m), as measured by the total length of the footrope that is directly attached to the webbing, unless the net is stowed and not available for immediate use, as specified in § 648.23, or unless the vessel is fishing under the Northeast multispecies or monkfish DAS programs.

(2)* * *

(i)*Minimum mesh size* . Subject to applicable minimum mesh size restrictions for other fisheries as specified under this part, the mesh size for any scallop trawl net in all areas shall not be smaller than 5.5 inches (13.97 cm). 9. Section 648.52 is revised to read as follows: § 648.52 Possession and landing limits.

(a)A vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit that is declared into the IFQ scallop fishery as specified in § 648.10(b), unless exempted under the state waters exemption program described under § 648.54, may not possess or land, per trip, more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked scallops, or possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS Demarcation Line. Such a vessel may land scallops only once in any calendar day. Such a vessel may possess up to 100 bu (35.2 hl) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line on a properly declared IFQ scallop trip.

(b)A vessel issued an NGOM scallop permit, or an IFQ scallop permit that is declared into the NGOM scallop fishery as described in § 648.62, unless exempted under the state waters exemption program described under § 648.54, may not possess or land, per trip, more than 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked, or 25 bu (8.81 hL) of in-shell scallops. Such a vessel may land scallops only once in any calendar day. Such a vessel may possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line on a properly declared NGOM scallop fishery trip.

(c)A vessel issued an Incidental scallop permit, or an IFQ or NGOM scallop permit that is not declared into the IFQ or NGOM scallop fishery as required under § 648.10(b)(4), unless exempted under the state waters exemption program described under § 648.54, may not possess or land, per trip, more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of shucked, or 5 bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops. Such a vessel may land scallops only once in any calendar day. Such a vessel may possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS demarcation line.

(d)Owners or operators of vessels with a limited access scallop permit that have properly declared into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program as described in § 648.60 are prohibited from fishing for or landing per trip, or possessing at any time, scallops in excess of any sea scallop possession and landing limit set by the Regional Administrator in accordance with § 648.60(a)(5).

(e)Owners or operators of vessels issued limited access permits fishing in or transiting the area south of 42°20′N. lat. at any time during a trip are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing per trip more than 50 bu (17.6 hl) of in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS Demarcation Line, unless when fishing under the state waters exemption specified under § 648.54.

(f)A vessel that is declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area Sea Scallop Area Access Program as described in § 648.60, may not possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops outside of the Elephant Trunk Access Area described in § 648.59(e). 10. Section 648.53 is revised to read as follows: § 648.53 Total allowable catch, DAS allocations, and Individual Fishing Quotas.

(a)*Target total allowable catch

(TAC)for scallop fishery.* The annual target total TAC for the scallop fishery shall be established through the framework adjustment process specified in § 648.55. The annual target TAC shall include the TAC for all scallop vessels fishing in open areas and Sea Scallop Access Areas, but shall exclude the TAC established for the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Management Area as specified in § 648.62. After deducting the total estimated incidental catch of scallops, as specified at § 648.53(a)(9), by vessels issued incidental catch general category scallop permits, and limited access and limited access general category scallop vessels not declared into the scallop fishery, the annual target TAC for open and Sea Scallop Access Areas shall each be divided between limited access vessels, limited access vessels that are fishing under a limited access general category permit, and limited access general category vessels as specified in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(6) of this section. In the event that a framework adjustment does not implement an annual TAC for a fishing or part of a fishing year, the preceding fishing year's scallop regulations shall apply.

(1)*2008 fishing year target TAC for scallop fishery.* To be determined.

(2)*2009 fishing year target TAC for scallop fishery.* To be determined.

(3)*Access area TAC.* The TAC for each access area specified in § 648.59 shall be determined through the framework adjustment process described in § 648.55 and shall be specified in § 648.59 for each access area. The TAC set-asides for observer coverage and research shall be deducted from the TAC in each Access Area prior to assigning the target TAC and trip allocations for limited access scallop vessels, and prior to allocating TAC to limited access general category vessels. The percentage of the TAC for each Access Area allocated to limited access vessels, limited access general category vessels, and limited access vessels fishing under limited access general category permits shall be specified in accordance with § 648.60 through the framework adjustment process specified in § 648.55.

(4)*Open area target TAC for limited access vessels.* —(i) *2008 fishing year.* For the 2008 fishing year, the target TAC for limited access vessels fishing under the scallop DAS program specified in this section is equal to 90 percent of the target TAC specified in accordance with this paragraph (a), minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(ii)*2009 fishing year.* Beginning March 1, 2009, unless the implementation of the IFQ program is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the target TAC for limited access vessels fishing under the scallop DAS program specified in this section is equal to 94.5 percent of the target TAC specified in accordance with this paragraph (a), minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The target TAC for limited access vessels fishing under the DAS program shall be used to determine the DAS allocation for full-time, part-time, and occasional scallop vessels will receive after deducting the DAS set-asides for observer coverage and research.

(5)*Open area TAC for IFQ scallop vessels* —(i) *2008 fishing year.* For the 2008 fishing year, IFQ scallop vessels, and limited access scallop vessels that are fishing under an IFQ scallop permit outside of the scallop DAS and Area Access programs, shall be allocated 10 percent of the annual target TAC specified in accordance with paragraph

(a)of this section minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(ii)*2009 fishing year and beyond for IFQ scallop vessels without a limited access scallop permit.* For the 2009 fishing year, unless the IFQ program is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the TAC for IFQ scallop vessels without a limited access scallop permit shall be equal to 5 percent of the target TAC specified in accordance with this paragraph (a), minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If the IFQ program implementation is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, the allocation of TAC to IFQ scallop vessels is specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.

(iii)*2009 fishing year and beyond for IFQ scallop vessels with a limited access scallop permit.* For the 2009 fishing year, unless the IFQ program is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, limited access scallop vessels that are fishing under an IFQ scallop permit outside of the scallop DAS and Area Access programs shall be allocated 0.5 percent of the annual target TAC specified in accordance with this paragraph

(a)minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If the IFQ program implementation is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, the allocation of TAC to IFQ scallop vessels is specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.

(6)*Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Fishery.* The TAC for the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Fishery shall be specified in accordance with § 648.62, through the framework adjustment process specified in § 648.55. The Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Fishery TAC is specified in § 648.62(b)(1).

(7)*Delay of the IFQ program.* If the IFQ program implementation is delayed beyond March 1, 2009, IFQ scallop vessels, including vessels fishing under temporary letter of authorization while their appeal for an IFQ scallop permit is pending, and limited access scallop vessels that are fishing under an IFQ scallop permit outside of the scallop DAS and Area Access programs, shall be allocated 10 percent of the annual target TAC specified in accordance with paragraph

(a)of this section minus the TAC for all access areas specified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section until the IFQ program is implemented. The distribution of the TAC as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section would remain in effect. If the Regional Administrator determines that the IFQ program cannot be implemented by March 1, 2009, NMFS shall inform all scallop vessel owners that the IFQ program shall not take effect.

(8)*Distribution of transition period TAC—(i) Allocation.* For the 2008 fishing year, and 2009 fishing year, and beyond, if the IFQ program is not implemented as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the TAC for IFQ scallop vessels shall be allocated as specified in paragraphs (a)(5) of this section into quarterly periods. The percentage allocations for each period allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels, including limited access vessels fishing under an IFQ scallop permit and vessels under appeal for an IFQ scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii) shall be specified in the framework adjustment process in § 648.55 and are specified in the following table: Quarter Percent TAC I. March-May 35 To be determined. II. June-August 40 To be determined. III. September-November 15 To be determined. IV. December-February 10 To be determined.

(ii)*Deductions of landings.* All landings by IFQ scallop vessels and limited access vessels fishing under an IFQ scallop permit shall be deducted from the TAC allocations specified in the table in paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section.

(iii)*Closure of fishery for the quarter.* No vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit, or vessel issued a temporary letter of authorization to fish for scallops while their appeal for an IFQ scallop permit is pending pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii), may possess, retain, or land scallops once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** that the scallop total allowable catch for the specified quarter, in accordance with this paragraph (a)(8) has been reached.

(iv)*Overages and underages of quarterly TACs.* Any overage or underage of catch during quarter 1 as specified in this paragraph (a)(8) shall be applied to the third quarter TAC as specified in this paragraph (a)(8). Any overage or underage of catch during quarters 2 and 3, as specified in this paragraph (a)(8), shall be applied to the fourth quarter TAC as specified in this paragraph (a)(8).

(9)*Scallop incidental catch target TAC.* To be determined.

(b)*DAS allocations.*

(1)Total DAS to be used in all areas other than those specified in § 648.59, shall be specified through the framework adjustment process as specified in § 648.55, using the target total allowable catch for open areas specified in paragraph

(a)of this section, and estimated catch per unit effort.

(2)Prior to setting the DAS allocations specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 1 percent of total available DAS will be set aside to help defray the cost of observers, as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. Two percent of total available DAS will be set aside to pay for scallop related research, as outlined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

(3)*Assignment to DAS categories.* Subject to the vessel permit application requirements specified in § 648.4, for each fishing year, each vessel issued a limited access scallop permit shall be assigned to the DAS category (full-time, part-time, or occasional) it was assigned to in the preceding year, except as provided under the small dredge program specified in § 648.51(e).

(4)Each vessel qualifying for one of the three DAS categories specified in the table in this paragraph (b)(2) (Full-time, Part-time, or Occasional) shall be allocated the maximum number of DAS for each fishing year it may participate in the open area limited access scallop fishery, according to its category. A vessel whose owner/operator has properly declared out of the scallop DAS fishery, pursuant to the provisions of § 648.10, including vessels that have used up their maximum allocated DAS, may leave port without being assessed a DAS, as long as it has made appropriate VMS declaration as specified in § 648.10(b)(4), possesses, fishes for, or retains the amount of scallops allowed by its general category permit, does not possess, fish for, or retain any scallops if the vessel does not have a general category scallop permit, and complies with all other requirements of this part. The annual open area DAS allocations for each category of vessel for the fishing years indicated, after deducting DAS for observer and research DAS set-asides, are as follows: DAS category 2007 2008 Full-time 51 To be determined. Part-time 20 To be determined. Occasional 4 To be determined.

(5)*Additional open area DAS.* If a TAC for yellowtail flounder specified in § 648.85(c) is harvested for an Access Area specified in § 648.59(b) through (d), a scallop vessel with remaining trips in the affected Access Area shall be allocated additional open area DAS according to the calculations specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)For each remaining complete trip in Closed Area I, a vessel may fish an additional 5.5 DAS in open areas during the same fishing year. A complete trip is deemed to be a trip that is not subject to a reduced possession limit under the broken trip provision in § 648.60(c). For example, a full-time scallop vessel with two complete trips remaining in Closed Area I would be allocated 11 additional open area DAS (2 times 5.5 = 11 DAS) if the TAC for yellowtail flounder allocated to the scallop fishery for Closed Area I is harvested in that area. Vessels allocated compensation trips as specified in § 648.60(c) that cannot be made because the yellowtail TAC in Closed Area I allocated to the scallop fishery is harvested shall be allocated 0.458 additional DAS for each unused DAS in Closed Area I. Unused DAS shall be calculated by dividing the compensation trip possession limit by 1,500 lb (680 kg), (the catch rate per DAS). For example, a vessel with a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) compensation trip remaining in Closed Area I would be allocated 3.05 additional open area DAS in that same fishing year (0.458 times 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)/1,500 lb (680 kg) per day).

(ii)For each remaining complete trip in Closed Area II, a vessel may fish an additional 5.4 DAS in open areas during the same fishing year. A complete trip is deemed to be a trip that is not subject to a reduced possession limit under the broken trip provision in § 648.60(c). For example, a full-time scallop vessel with two complete trips remaining in Closed Area II would be allocated 10.8 additional open area DAS (2 times 5.4 = 10.8 DAS) if the TAC for yellowtail flounder allocated to the scallop fishery in Closed Area II is harvested in that area. Vessels allocated compensation trips as specified in § 648.60(c) that cannot be made because the yellowtail TAC in Closed Area II allocated to the scallop fishery is harvested shall be allocated 0.450 additional DAS for each unused DAS in Closed Area II. Unused DAS shall be calculated by dividing the compensation trip possession limit by 1,500 lb (680 kg) (the catch rate per DAS). For example, a vessel with a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) compensation trip remaining in Closed Area II would be allocated 3 additional open area DAS in that same fishing year (0.450 times 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)/1,500 lb (680 kg) per day).

(iii)For each remaining complete trip in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area, a vessel may fish an additional 4.9 DAS in open areas during the same fishing year. A complete trip is deemed to be a trip that is not subject to a reduced possession limit under the broken trip provision in § 648.60(c). For example, a full-time scallop vessel with two complete trips remaining in Nantucket Lightship Access Area would be allocated 9.8 additional open area DAS (2 times 4.9 = 9.8 DAS) if the TAC for yellowtail flounder allocated to the scallop fishery in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area is harvested in that area. Vessels allocated compensation trips as specified in § 648.60(c) that cannot be made because the yellowtail TAC in Nantucket Lightship Access Area allocated to the scallop fishery is harvested shall be allocated 0.408 additional DAS for each unused DAS in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area. Unused DAS shall be calculated by dividing the compensation trip possession limit by 1,500 lb (680 kg) (the catch rate per DAS). For example, a vessel with a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) compensation trip remaining in Nantucket Lightship Access Area would be allocated 2.7 additional open area DAS in that same fishing year (0.408 times 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)/1,500 lb (680 kg) per day).

(6)DAS allocations and other management measures are specified for each scallop fishing year, which begins on March 1 and ends on February 28 (or February 29), unless otherwise noted. For example, the 2006 fishing year refers to the period March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007.

(c)*Adjustments in annual DAS allocations.* Annual DAS allocations shall be established for 2 fishing years through biennial framework adjustments as specified in § 648.55. If a biennial framework action is not undertaken by the Council and implemented by NMFS, the DAS allocations and Access Area trip allocations from the most recent fishing year shall remain in effect for the next fishing year. The Council may also recommend adjustments to DAS allocations through a framework action at any time.

(d)*End-of-year carry-over for open area DAS.* With the exception of vessels that held a Confirmation of Permit History as described in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(J) for the entire fishing year preceding the carry-over year, limited access vessels that have unused Open Area DAS on the last day of February of any year may carry over a maximum of 10 DAS, not to exceed the total Open Area DAS allocation by permit category, into the next year. DAS carried over into the next fishing year may only be used in Open Areas. DAS sanctioned vessels will be credited with unused DAS based on their unused DAS allocation, minus total DAS sanctioned.

(e)*Accrual of DAS.* All DAS fished shall be charged to the nearest minute. A vessel carrying an observer and authorized to be charged fewer DAS in Open Areas based on the total available DAS set aside under paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall be charged at a reduced rate as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(f)*Good Samaritan credit.* Limited access vessels fishing under the DAS program and that spend time at sea assisting in a USCG search and rescue operation or assisting the USCG in towing a disabled vessel, and that can document the occurrence through the USCG, will not accrue DAS for the time documented.

(g)*DAS set-asides* —(1) *DAS set-aside for observer coverage.* As specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, to help defray the cost of carrying an observer, 1 percent of the total DAS shall be set aside from the total DAS available for allocation, to be used by vessels that are assigned to take an at-sea observer on a trip other than an Area Access Program trip. The DAS set-aside for observer coverage for the 2007 fishing year is 165 DAS. Vessels carrying an observer shall be compensated with reduced DAS accrual rates for each trip on which the vessel carries an observer. For each DAS that a vessel fishes for scallops with an observer on board, the DAS shall be charged at a reduced rate based on an adjustment factor determined by the Regional Administrator on an annual basis, dependent on the cost of observers, catch rates, and amount of available DAS set-aside. The Regional Administrator shall notify vessel owners of the cost of observers and the DAS adjustment factor through a permit holder letter issued prior to the start of each fishing year. The number of DAS that are deducted from each trip based on the adjustment factor shall be deducted from the observer DAS set-aside amount in the applicable fishing year. Utilization of the DAS set-aside shall be on a first-come, first-served basis. When the DAS set-aside for observer coverage has been utilized, vessel owners shall be notified that no additional DAS remain available to offset the cost of carrying observers. The obligation to carry and pay for an observer shall not be waived due to the absence of set-aside DAS allocations.

(2)*DAS set-aside for research.* As specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, to help support the activities of vessels participating in certain research, as specified in § 648.56; the DAS set-aside for research for the 2007 fishing year is 330 DAS. Vessels participating in approved research shall be authorized to use additional DAS in the applicable fishing year. Notification of allocated additional DAS shall be provided through a letter of authorization, or Exempted Fishing Permit issued by NMFS, or shall be added to a participating vessel's open area DAS allocation, as appropriate.

(h)*Annual Individual fishing quotas* —(1) *IFQ restriction.* For each fishing year of the IFQ program, a vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit may only harvest and land the total amount of scallop meats allocated in accordance with this subpart. Unless otherwise specified in this part, a vessel allocated scallop IFQ may not exceed the possession limits specified in § 648.52 on any trip.

(2)*Calculation of IFQ.* The total allowable catch allocated to IFQ scallop vessels, and the total allowable catch allocated to limited access scallop vessels issued IFQ scallop permits, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section, shall be used to determine the IFQ of each vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit. Each fishing year, the Regional Administrator shall provide the owner of a vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(ii) with the scallop IFQ for the vessel for the upcoming fishing year.

(i)*Individual fishing quota.* The IFQ for an IFQ scallop vessel shall be the vessel's contribution percentage as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section and determined using the steps specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) of this section, multiplied by the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop fishery, or limited access vessels issued an IFQ scallop permit, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section.

(ii)*Contribution factor.* An IFQ scallop vessel's contribution factor is calculated using the best year, years active, and index factor as specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) through

(C)of this section. A vessel's contribution factor shall be provided to the owner of a qualified limited access general category vessel following initial application for an IFQ scallop permit as specified in § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(E), consistent with confidentiality restrictions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specified at 16 U.S.C. 1881a.

(A)*Best year determination.* An eligible IFQ scallop vessel's highest scallop landings in any scallop fishing year that the vessel was issued a general category scallop permit between March 1, 2000, and November 1, 2004, shall be determined using NMFS dealer reports. Scallop landings in the 2004 fishing year must have occurred on or before November 1, 2004. If a dealer reported more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallops landed on a trip, only 400 lb (181.4 kg) will be credited for that trip toward the best year calculation. For dealer reports that indicate clearly that the landings were bushels of in-shell scallops, a conversion of 8.33 lb (3.78 kg) of scallop meats per bushel shall be used to calculate meat-weight, up to a maximum of 400 lb (181.4 kg) per trip.

(B)*Years active.* For each eligible IFQ scallop vessel, the total number of scallop fishing years during the period March 1, 2000, through November 1, 2004, in which the vessel had a general category scallop permit and landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of scallop meats, or in-shell scallops, shall be counted as active years based on NMFS dealer reports. Scallop landings in the 2004 fishing year must have occurred on or before November 1, 2004.

(C)*Index to determine contribution factor.* For each eligible IFQ scallop vessel, the best year as determined pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E)( *1* ) of this section shall be multiplied by the appropriate index factor specified in the following table, based on years active as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E)( *2* ) of this section. The resulting contribution factor shall determine its IFQ for each fishing year based on the allocation to general category scallop vessels as specified in § 648.53(a)(2) and the method of calculating the IFQ provided in § 648.53(h). Years active Index factor 1 0.75 2 0.875 3 1.0 4 1.125 5 1.25

(D)*Contribution factor example.* If a vessel landed 48,550 lb (22,022 kg) of scallops in its best year, and was active in the general category scallop fishery for 5 years, the vessel's contribution factor is equal to 60,687 lb (27,527 kg) (48,550 lb (22,022 kg * 1.25).

(iii)*Contribution percentage.* A vessel's contribution percentage will be determined by dividing its contribution factor by the sum of the contribution factors of all vessels issued an IFQ scallop permit. The sum of the contribution factors shall be determined when all IFQ scallop vessels are identified. Continuing the example in paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(D) of this section, the sum of the contribution factors for 380 IFQ scallop vessels is estimated for the purpose of this example to be 4.18 million lb (1,896 mt). The contribution percentage of the above vessel is 1.45 percent (60,687 lb (27,527 kg) /4.18 million lb (1,896 mt) = 1.45 percent).

(iv)*Vessel IFQ Example.* Continuing the example in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(D) and (h)(1)(iii) of this section, with a TAC allocated to IFQ scallop vessels estimated for this example to be equal to 2.5 million lb (1,134 mt), the vessel's IFQ would be 36,250 lb (16,443 kg) (1.45 percent * 2.5 million lb (1,134 mt)).

(3)*IFQ ownership restrictions* —(i) *IFQ scallop vessel IFQ cap.*

(A)Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) and

(C)of this section, a vessel issued an IFQ scallop permit or confirmation of permit history shall not be issued more than 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section.

(B)A vessel may be initially issued more than 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section, if the initial determination of its contribution factor specified in accordance with § 648.4(a)(2)(ii)(E) and paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section, results in an IFQ that exceeds 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section. A vessel that is allocated an IFQ that exceeds 2 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section in accordance with this paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B), may not transfer IFQ to that vessel, as specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this section.

(C)A vessel initially issued a 2008 IFQ scallop permit or confirmation of permit history, or issued or renewed a limited access scallop permit or confirmation of permit history for a vessel in 2009 and thereafter, in compliance with the ownership restrictions in paragraph (h)(3)(i)(A) of this section, are eligible to renew such permits(s) and/or confirmation(s) of permit history, regardless of whether the renewal of the permits or confirmations of permit history will result in the 2-percent ownership restriction being exceeded.

(ii)*IFQ ownership cap.*

(A)For any vessel acquired after June 1, 2008, a vessel owner is not eligible to be issued an IFQ scallop permit for the vessel, and/or a confirmation of permit history, and is not eligible to transfer IFQ to the vessel, if, as a result of the issuance of the permit and/or confirmation of permit history, or IFQ transfer, the vessel owner, or any other person who is a shareholder or partner of the vessel owner, will have an ownership interest in more than 5 percent of the TAC allocated to the IFQ scallop vessels as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and

(iii)of this section.

(B)Vessel owners who were initially issued a 2008 IFQ scallop permit or confirmation of permit history, or who were issued or renewed a limited access scallop permit or confirmation of permit history for a vessel in 2009 and thereafter, in compliance with the ownership restrictions in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, are eligible to renew such permits(s) and/or confirmation(s) of permit history, regardless of whether the renewal of the permits or confirmations of permit history will result in the 5-percent ownership restriction being exceeded.

(C)Having an ownership interest includes, but is not limited to, persons who are shareholders in a vessel owned by a corporation, who are partners (general or limited) to a vessel owner, or who, in any way, partly own a vessel.

(iii)*Limited access scallop vessels that have been issued an IFQ scallop permit.* The IFQ scallop vessel IFQ cap and IFQ ownership cap specified in this paragraph (h)(3) do not apply to limited access scallop vessels that are also issued a limited access general category scallop permit because such vessels are already subject to an ownership limitation, as specified in § 648.4(a)(2)(i)(M).

(4)*IFQ cost recovery.* NMFS shall collect a fee, not to exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested in a fishing year, to recover the costs associated with management, data collection, and enforcement of the IFQ program. Owners of IFQ scallop vessels shall be responsible for paying the fee as required by NMFS. For IFQ scallop vessel owners involved in a temporary transfer of IFQ as specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this section, the transferor and transferee shall be joint and severally responsible for any failure to pay cost recovery fees. By agreeing to and accepting the transfer of IFQ, the transferee waives confidentiality of information associated with landings of the transferred IFQ for the use of the transferor only. The specific cost recovery provisions shall be specified in the first framework implementing the specifications for the IFQ program, including the overall total allowable catch and eligible vessels' IFQs. Payment of cost recovery funds shall be through electronic means unless otherwise notified by the Regional Administrator.

(5)*Transferring IFQ* —(i) *Temporary IFQ transfers.* Subject to the restrictions in paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner of an IFQ scallop vessel not issued a limited access scallop permit may temporarily transfer one or more entire IFQs to or from another IFQ scallop vessel. Temporary IFQ transfers shall be effective only for the fishing year in which the temporary transfer is requested and processed. The Regional Administrator has final approval authority for all temporary IFQ transfer requests.

(ii)*Permanent IFQ transfers.* Subject to the restrictions in paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner of an IFQ scallop vessel not issued a limited access scallop permit may transfer one or more entire IFQs permanently to or from another IFQ scallop vessel. A vessel permanently transferring its IFQ to another vessel must transfer all of its Federal limited access permits for which it is eligible to the transferee vessel in accordance with the vessel replacement restrictions under § 648.4, or permanently cancel such permits. Any such transfer cannot be limited in duration and is permanent unless the IFQ is subsequently transferred to another IFQ scallop vessel, other than the originating IFQ scallop vessel, in a subsequent fishing year. The Regional Administrator has final approval authority for all IFQ transfer requests.

(iii)*IFQ transfer restrictions.* The owner of an IFQ scallop vessel not issued a limited access scallop permit may transfer entire IFQ allocations only. The owner of an IFQ scallop vessel not issued a limited access scallop permit that has fished under its IFQ in a fishing year may not transfer that vessel's IFQ to another IFQ scallop vessel in the same fishing year. A transfer of an IFQ may not result in the sum of the IFQs on the receiving vessel exceeding 2 percent of the total allowable catch allocated to IFQ scallop vessels. Limited access scallop vessels that are also issued an IFQ scallop permit may not transfer or receive IFQ from another IFQ scallop vessel, either temporarily or permanently. A vessel permanently transferring its IFQ to another vessel must transfer all of its Federal limited access permits for which it is eligible to the transferee vessel in accordance with the vessel replacement restrictions under § 648.4, or permanently cancel such permits.

(iv)*Application for an IFQ transfer.* The owner of vessels applying for a transfer IFQ must submit a completed application form obtained from the Regional Administrator. The application must be signed by both parties (transferor and transferee) involved in the transfer of the IFQ, and must be submitted to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office at least 30 days before the date on which the applicants desire to have the IFQ effective on the receiving vessel. The Regional Administrator shall notify the applicants of any deficiency in the application pursuant to this section. Applications may be submitted at any time during the scallop fishing year, provided the vessel transferring the IFQ to another vessel has not utilized any of its own IFQ in that fishing year. Applications for temporary transfers received 45 days prior to the end of the fishing year may not be processed in time for a vessel to utilize the transferred IFQ prior to the expiration of the fishing year for which the IFQ transfer, if approved, would be effective.

(A)*Application information requirements.* An application to transfer IFQ must contain at least the following information: Transferor's name, vessel name, permit number, and official number or state registration number; transferee's name, vessel name, permit number and official number or state registration number; total price paid for purchased IFQ; signatures of transferor and transferee; and date the form was completed. Information obtained from the transfer application will be held confidential, and will be used only in summarized form for management of the fishery. If applicable, an application for a permanent IFQ transfer must be accompanied by verification, in writing, that the transferor either has requested cancellation of all limited access Federal fishing permits, or has applied for a transfer of all of its limited access permits in accordance with the vessel replacement restrictions under § 648.4.

(B)*Approval of IFQ transfer applications.* Unless an application to transfer IFQ is denied according to paragraph (h)(5)(iii)(C) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall issue confirmation of application approval to both parties involved in the transfer within 45 days of receipt of an application.

(C)*Denial of transfer application.* The Regional Administrator may reject an application to transfer IFQ for the following reasons: The application is incomplete; the transferor or transferee does not possess a valid limited access general category permit; the transferor's or transferee's vessel or IFQ scallop permit has been sanctioned, pursuant to an enforcement proceeding; the transferor's or transferee's vessel is prohibited from fishing; the transfer will result in the transferee's vessel having an allocation that exceeds 2 percent of the total allowable catch allocated to IFQ scallop vessels; the transfer will result in the transferee having ownership of general category scallop allocation that exceeds 5 percent of the total allowable catch allocated to IFQ scallop vessels; or any other failure to meet the requirements of this subpart. Upon denial of an application to transfer IFQ, the Regional Administrator shall send a letter to the applicants describing the reason(s) for the rejection. The decision by the Regional Administrator is the final agency decision and there is no opportunity to appeal the Regional Administrator's decision. 11. In § 648.54, paragraphs (b), (c)(3), and

(f)are revised to read as follows: § 648.54 State waters exemption.

(b)*LAGC scallop vessel gear and possession limit restrictions.* Any vessel issued an LAGC scallop permit is exempt from the gear restrictions specified in § 648.51(a), (b), (e)(1), and (e)(2), and the applicable possession limits specified in § 648.52, while fishing exclusively landward of the outer boundary of the waters of a state that has been issued a state waters exemption, provided the vessel complies with paragraphs

(d)through

(g)of this section.

(c)* * *

(3)Prior to Amendment 11 to the FMP, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were determined by the Regional Administrator to have scallop fisheries and scallop conservation programs that do not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the FMP. States must resubmit information describing their scallop fishery conservation programs so that the Regional Administrator can determine if such states continue to have scallop fisheries and scallop conservation programs that do not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the FMP. In addition, these states must immediately notify the Regional Administrator of any changes in their respective scallop conservation program. The Regional Administrator shall review these changes and, if a determination is made that the state's conservation program jeopardizes the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the FMP, or that the state no longer has a scallop fishery, the Regional Administrator shall publish a rule in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, to eliminate the exemption for that state. The Regional Administrator may determine that other states have scallop fisheries and scallop conservation programs that do not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the FMP. In such case, the Regional Administrator shall publish a rule in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, to provide the exemption for such states.

(f)*Duration of exemption.* An exemption expires upon a change in the vessel's name or ownership, or upon notification through VMS by the participating vessel's owner. 12. In § 648.55, paragraphs

(a)and

(e)are revised to read as follows: § 648.55 Framework adjustments to management measures.

(a)Biennially, or upon a request from the Council, the Regional Administrator shall provide the Council with information on the status of the scallop resource. Within 60 days of receipt of that information, the Council PDT shall assess the condition of the scallop resource to determine the adequacy of the management measures to achieve scallop resource conservation objectives. Based on this information, the PDT shall prepare a Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation

(SAFE)Report that provides the information and analysis needed to evaluate potential management adjustments. Based on this information and analysis, the Council shall initiate a framework adjustment to establish or revise total allowable catch, DAS allocations, rotational area management programs, percentage allocations for limited access general category vessels in Sea Scallop Access Areas, scallop possession limits, or other measures to achieve FMP objectives and limit fishing mortality. The Council's development of an area rotation program shall take into account at least the following factors: General rotation policy; boundaries and distribution of rotational closures; number of closures; minimum closure size; maximum closure extent; enforceability of rotational closed and re-opened areas; monitoring through resource surveys; and re-opening criteria. Rotational Closures should be considered where projected annual change in scallop biomass is greater than 30 percent. Areas should be considered for Sea Scallop Access Areas where the projected annual change in scallop biomass is less than 15 percent.

(e)After considering the PDT's findings and recommendations, or at any other time, if the Council determines that adjustments to, or additional management measures are necessary, it shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. To address interactions between the scallop fishery and sea turtles and other protected species, such adjustments may include proactive measures including, but not limited to, the timing of Sea Scallop Access Area openings, seasonal closures, gear modifications, increased observer coverage, and additional research. The Council shall provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the proposals and the analyses, and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures must include measures to prevent overfishing of the available biomass of scallops and ensure that OY is achieved on a continuing basis, and must come from one or more of the following categories:

(1)Total allowable catch and DAS changes;

(2)Shell height;

(3)Offloading window reinstatement;

(4)Effort monitoring;

(5)Data reporting;

(6)Trip limits;

(7)Gear restrictions;

(8)Permitting restrictions;

(9)Crew limits;

(10)Small mesh line;

(11)Onboard observers;

(12)Modifications to the overfishing definition;

(13)VMS Demarcation Line for DAS monitoring;

(14)DAS allocations by gear type;

(15)Temporary leasing of scallop DAS requiring full public hearings;

(16)Scallop size restrictions, except a minimum size or weight of individual scallop meats in the catch;

(17)Aquaculture enhancement measures and closures;

(18)Closed areas to increase the size of scallops caught;

(19)Modifications to the opening dates of closed areas;

(20)Size and configuration of rotational management areas;

(21)Controlled access seasons to minimize bycatch and maximize yield;

(22)Area-specific trip allocations;

(23)TAC specifications and seasons following re-opening;

(24)Limits on number of area closures;

(25)TAC or DAS set-asides for funding research;

(26)Priorities for scallop-related research that is funded by a TAC or DAS set-aside;

(27)Finfish TACs for controlled access areas;

(28)Finfish possession limits;

(29)Sea sampling frequency;

(30)Area-specific gear limits and specifications;

(31)Modifications to provisions associated with observer set-asides; observer coverage; observer deployment; observer service provider; and/or the observer certification regulations;

(32)Specifications for IFQs for limited access general category vessels;

(33)Revisions to the cost recovery program for IFQs;

(34)Development of general category fishing industry sectors and fishing cooperatives;

(35)Adjustments to the Northern Gulf of Maine scallop fishery measures;

(36)VMS requirements; and

(37)Any other management measures currently included in the FMP. 13. Section 648.57 is revised to read as follows: § 648.57 Sea scallop area rotation program. An area rotation program is established for the scallop fishery, which may include areas closed to scallop fishing defined in § 648.58, and/or Sea Scallop Access Areas defined in § 648.59, subject to the Sea Scallop Area Access program requirements specified in § 648.60. Areas not defined as Rotational Closed Areas, Sea Scallop Access Areas, EFH Closed Areas, or areas closed to scallop fishing under other FMPs, are open to scallop fishing as governed by the other management measures and restrictions in this part. The Council's development of area rotation programs is subject to the framework adjustment process specified in § 648.55, including the Area Rotation Program factors included in § 648.55(a). The percentage of the total allowable catch for each Sea Scallop Access Area that is allocated to limited access scallop vessels and limited access general category scallop vessels shall be specified in § 648.59 through the framework adjustment process specified in § 648.55. 14. In § 648.59, paragraphs (b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(i), (c)(5)(ii), (d)(5)(i), (d)(5)(ii), (e)(4)(i), and (e)(4)(ii) are revised to read as follows: § 648.59 Sea Scallop Access Areas.

(b)* * *

(5)* * *

(i)*Limited access vessels.* Based on its permit category, a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may fish no more than the maximum number of trips in the Closed Area I Access Area as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(i), unless the vessel owner has made an exchange with another vessel owner whereby the vessel gains a Closed Area I Access Area trip and gives up a trip into another Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(ii), or unless the vessel is taking a compensation trip for a prior Closed Area I Access Area trip that was terminated early, as specified in § 648.60(c). The number of trips allocated to limited access vessels in the Closed Area I Access Area shall be based on the TAC for the access area, which will be determined through the annual framework process and specified in this paragraph (b)(5)(i).

(ii)*LAGC scallop vessels.*

(A)The percentage of the Closed Area I total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) through the framework adjustment process. The resulting total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) and shall determine the number of trips specified in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.

(B)Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, subject to the possession limit specified in §§ 648.52(a) and (b), and 648.60(g), and subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, an LAGC scallop vessel may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Closed Area I Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with § 648.60(g)(4), the date on which 216 trips are projected to be taken, in total, by all LAGC scallop vessels, unless transiting pursuant to paragraph

(f)of this section. The Regional Administrator shall notify all LAGC scallop vessels of the date when the maximum number of allowed trips have been, or are projected to be, taken for the 2008 fishing year.

(C)A vessel issued a NE Multispecies permit and a LAGC scallop permit that is fishing in an approved SAP under § 648.85 under multispecies DAS may fish in the Scallop Access Areas without being subject to the restrictions of paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, provided that it has not enrolled in the Scallop Area Access program. Such vessel is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops.

(c)* * *

(5)* * *

(i)*Limited access vessels.* Based on its permit category, a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may fish no more than the maximum number of trips in the Closed Area II Access Area, unless the vessel owner has made an exchange with another vessel owner whereby the vessel gains a Closed Area II Access Area trip and gives up a trip into another Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(ii), or unless the vessel is taking a compensation trip for a prior Closed Area II Access Area trip that was terminated early, as specified in § 648.60(c). The number of trips allocated to limited access vessels in the Closed Area II Access Area shall be based on the TAC for the access area, which will be determined through the annual framework process and specified in this paragraph (c)(5)(i).

(ii)*LAGC scallop vessels.*

(A)The percentage of the Closed Area II total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (c)(5)(ii) through the framework adjustment process. The resulting total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (c)(5)(ii) and shall determine the number of trips specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.

(B)Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(a) and (b), and 648.60(g), and subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, an LAGC scallop vessel may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Closed Area II Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with § 648.60(g)(4), of the date on which the total number of trips is projected to be taken, in total, by all LAGC scallop vessels, unless transiting pursuant to paragraph

(f)of this section. The Regional Administrator shall notify all LAGC scallop vessels of the date when the maximum number of allowed trips have been, or are projected to be, taken.

(C)A vessel issued a NE Multispecies permit and an LAGC scallop permit that is fishing in an approved SAP under § 648.85 under multispecies DAS may fish in the Scallop Access Areas without being subject to the restrictions of paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, provided that it has not enrolled in the Scallop Area Access program. Such vessel is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops.

(d)* * *

(5)* * *

(i)*Limited access vessels.* Based on its permit category, a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may fish no more than the maximum number of trips in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area, unless the vessel owner has made an exchange with another vessel owner whereby the vessel gains a Nantucket Lightship Access Area trip and gives up a trip into another Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(ii), or unless the vessel is taking a compensation trip for a prior Nantucket Lightship Closed Area Access Area trip that was terminated early, as specified in § 648.60(c). The number of trips allocated to limited access vessels in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area shall be based on the TAC for the access area, which will be determined through the annual framework process and specified in this paragraph (d)(5)(i).

(ii)*LAGC scallop vessels.*

(A)The percentage of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (d)(5)(ii) through the framework adjustment process. The resulting total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (d)(5)(ii) and shall determine the number of trips specified in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.

(B)Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(a) and (b), and 648.60(g), an LAGC scallop vessel may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Nantucket Lightship Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with § 648.60(g)(4), of the date on which the total number of trips are projected to be taken, in total, by all LAGC scallop vessels, unless transiting pursuant to paragraph

(f)of this section. The Regional Administrator shall notify all LAGC scallop vessels of the date when the maximum number of allowed trips have been, or are projected to be, taken.

(C)A vessel issued a NE Multispecies permit and an LAGC scallop permit that is fishing in an approved SAP under § 648.85 under multispecies DAS may fish in the Scallop Access Areas without being subject to the restrictions of paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, provided that it has not enrolled in the Scallop Area Access program. Such vessel is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops.

(e)* * *

(4)* * *

(i)*Limited access vessels.* Based on its permit category, a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may fish no more than the maximum number of trips in the Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(i), unless the vessel owner has made an exchange with another vessel owner whereby the vessel gains an Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area trip and gives up a trip into another Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(ii), or unless the vessel is taking a compensation trip for a prior Elephant Trunk Access Area trip that was terminated early, as specified in § 648.60(c). The number of trips allocated to limited access vessels in the Elephant Trunk Access Area shall be based on the TAC for the access area, which will be determined through the annual framework process and specified in this paragraph (e)(4)(i).

(ii)*LAGC scallop vessels.*

(A)The percentage of the Elephant Trunk Access Area total allowable catch allocated to LAGC scallop vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (e)(4)(ii) through the framework adjustment process. The resulting total allowable catch allocated to limited access general category vessels shall be specified in this paragraph (e)(4)(ii) and shall determine the number of trips specified in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

(B)Subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(a) and (b), and 648.60(g), an LAGC scallop vessel may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with § 648.60(g)(4), of the date on which 865 trips allocated March 1, 2008, are projected to be taken, in total, by all LAGC scallop vessels, unless transiting pursuant to paragraph

(f)of this section. The Regional Administrator shall notify all LAGC scallop vessels of the date when the maximum number of allowed trips have been, or are projected to be, taken. 15. In § 648.60, paragraph

(a)introductory text, paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), and paragraph (g)(3) introductory text are revised to read as follows: § 648.60 Sea scallop area access program requirements.

(a)A limited access scallop vessel may only fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.59, subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in § 648.59, when fishing under a scallop DAS, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9), and

(b)through

(f)of this section. An LAGC scallop vessel may fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.59, subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in § 648.59, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraph

(g)of this section.

(g)* * *

(1)An LAGC scallop vessel, except a vessel issued a NE Multispecies permit and an LAGC scallop permit that is fishing in an approved SAP under § 648.85 under multispecies DAS that has not enrolled in the LAGC Access Area fishery, may only fish in the Closed Area I, Closed Area II, and Nantucket Lightship Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.59(b) through (d), subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in § 648.59(b)(4), (c)(4), and (d)(4), and subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.52(a), and provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6) through (a)(9), (d), (e), (f), and

(g)of this section, and § 648.85(c)(3)(ii). A vessel issued a NE Multispecies permit and an LAGC scallop permit that is fishing in an approved SAP under § 648.85 under multispecies DAS that has not enrolled in the Sea Scallop Area Access program as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is not subject to the restrictions and requirements specified in § 648.59(b)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(ii), (d)(5)(ii), and this paragraph (g), but may not fish for, possess, or land scallops on such trips.

(2)*Gear restrictions.* An LAGC scallop vessel authorized to fish in the Access Areas specified in § 648.59(b) through

(d)must fish with dredge gear only. The combined dredge width in use by, or in possession on board, LAGC scallop vessels fishing in the Access Areas described in § 648.59(b) through

(d)may not exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m), measured at the widest point in the bail of the dredge.

(3)*Scallop TAC.* An LAGC scallop vessel authorized to fish in the Access Areas specified in § 648.59(b) through

(e)may land scallops, subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.52(a), unless the Regional Administrator has issued a notice that the scallop TAC specified in § 648.59(b)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(ii), (d)(5)(ii), and (e)(4)(ii) in the Access Area has been or is projected to be harvested. Upon a determination from the Regional Administrator that the scallop TAC for a specified Access Area, as specified in this paragraph (g)(3), has been, or is projected to be harvested, the Regional Administrator shall publish notification of this determination in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Once this determination has been made, and LAGC scallop vessel may not fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the specified Access Area. 16. Section 648.62 is added to read as follows: § 648.62 Northern Gulf of Maine

(NGOM)scallop management area.

(a)The NGOM scallop management area is the area north of 42(20' N. lat. and within the boundaries of the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area as specified in § 648.80(a)(11). To fish for or possess scallops in the NGOM scallop management area, a vessel must have been issued a scallop permit as specified in § 648.4(a)(2).

(1)If a vessel has been issued a NGOM scallop permit, the vessel is restricted to fishing for or possessing scallops only in the NGOM scallop management area.

(2)Scallop landings by all vessels issued LAGC scallop permits, including IFQ scallop permits, and fishing in the NGOM scallop management area shall be deducted from the NGOM scallop total allowable catch specified in paragraph

(b)of this section. Scallop landings by IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM scallop management area shall be deducted from their respective scallop IFQs. Landings by limited access scallop vessels fishing under the scallop DAS program shall not be deducted from the NGOM total allowable catch specified in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(3)A vessel issued a NGOM or IFQ scallop permit that fishes in the NGOM may fish for, possess, or retain up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.81 hL) of in-shell scallops, and may possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line. A vessel issued an incidental catch general category scallop permit that fishes in the NGOM may fish for, possess, or retain only up to 40 lb of shucked or 5 U.S. bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops, and may possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line.

(b)*Total allowable catch.* The total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area shall be specified through the framework adjustment process. The total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area shall be based on the Federal portion of the scallop resource in the NGOM. The total allowable catch shall be determined by historical landings until additional information on the NGOM scallop resource is available, for example through an NGOM resource survey and assessment. The total allowable catch and allocations as specified in § 648.53(a) shall not include the total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area, and landings from the NGOM scallop management area shall not be counted against the total allowable catch and allocations specified in § 648.53(a).

(1)*NGOM total allowable catch.* To be determined.

(2)Unless a vessel has fished for scallops outside of the NGOM scallop management area and is transiting NGOM scallop management area with all fishing gear stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b), no vessel issued a scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2) may possess, retain, or land scallops in the NGOM scallop management area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** that the NGOM scallop total allowable catch in accordance with this paragraph

(b)has been reached. A vessel that has not been issued a Federal scallop permit that fishes exclusively in state waters is not subject to the closure of the NGOM scallop management area.

(c)*VMS requirements.* Except scallop vessels issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i) that have declared a trip under the scallop DAS program, a vessel issued a scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2) that intends to fish for scallops in the NGOM scallop management area or fishes for, possesses, or lands scallops in or from the NGOM scallop management area, must declare a NGOM scallop management area trip and report scallop catch through the vessel's VMS unit, as required in § 648.10.

(d)*Gear restrictions.* Except scallop vessels issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i) that have properly declared a trip under the scallop DAS program, the combined dredge width in use by, or in possession on board, LAGC scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM scallop management area may not exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m), measured at the widest point in the bail of the dredge. 17. Section 648.63 is added to read as follows: § 648.63 General category Sectors and harvesting cooperatives.

(a)*Procedure for implementing Sector allocation proposals.*

(1)Any person may submit a Sector allocation proposal for a group of LAGC scallop vessels to the Council, at least 1 year in advance of the start of the proposed sector, and request that the Sector be implemented through a framework procedure specified at § 648.55, in accordance with the conditions and restrictions of this section.

(2)Upon receipt of a Sector allocation proposal, the Council must decide whether to initiate such framework. Should a framework adjustment to authorize a Sector allocation be initiated, the Council shall follow the framework adjustment provisions of § 648.55. Any framework adjustment developed to implement a Sector allocation proposal must be in compliance with the general requirements specified in paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of this section. Vessels that do not join a Sector remain subject to the LAGC scallop vessel regulations for non-Sector vessels specified under this part.

(b)*General requirements applicable to all Sector allocations.* All Sectors approved under the provisions of paragraph

(a)of this section must submit the documents specified under paragraphs (a)(1) and

(c)of this section, and comply with the conditions and restrictions of this paragraph (b).

(1)*Participation.*

(i)Only LAGC scallop vessels are eligible to form Sectors, and Sectors may choose which eligible permit holders to include or exclude in the sector, consistent with all applicable law. A Sector may establish additional criteria for determining its membership, provided such criteria are specified in the Sector's operations plan and are consistent with all applicable law. Any interested group that meets the eligibility criteria may submit a proposal for a Sector. To initiate the process of Sector creation, a group (two or more) of permit holders must agree to cooperate and submit a binding plan for management of that Sector's allocation of total allowable catch. Vessels that do not choose to participate in a sector will fish under the IFQ program and remain in the non-sector scallop fishery.

(ii)Participation by incidental catch or NGOM scallop vessels in the Sector is subject to approval by the Council as part of the action that implements the Sector allocation, provided the details of such participation are specified in the Sector's operations plan. A Sector allocation may be harvested by non-Sector members, provided the Sector operations plan specifies that the Sector may authorize non-Sector vessels to harvest the Sector allocation. In this case, if the Sector is approved, the landings history of the participating non-Sector vessels may not be used in the calculation of future Sector shares and may not be used as scallop catch history for such vessels. The operations plan must specify how such participating non-Sector shall be subject to the rules of the Sector.

(iii)Once a vessel operator and/or vessel owner signs a binding contract to have his/her vessel participate in a Sector, that vessel must remain in the Sector for the remainder of the fishing year.

(iv)Vessels that fish in the LAGC scallop fishery outside the Sector allocation in a given fishing year may not participate in a Sector during that same fishing year, unless the Operations Plan provides an acceptable method for accounting for IFQ used, or catch by the vessel, prior to implementation of the Sector.

(v)Once a vessel operator and/or vessel owner has agreed to participate in a Sector as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, that vessel must remain in the Sector for the entire fishing year. If a permit is transferred by a Sector participant during the fishing year, the new owner must also comply with the Sector regulations for the remainder of the fishing year.

(vi)Vessels and vessel operators and/or vessel owners removed from a Sector for violation of the Sector rules will not be eligible to fish under the scallop regulations for non-Sector vessels specified under this part either for any period specified in the final decision of penalty or sanction.

(vii)If a pre-existing Sector accepts a new member, the percentage share brought to the Sector is based on that vessel's average qualification landings at the time it joins the Sector ( *i.e.* , the vessel is treated as a “Sector of one” and a share based on the appropriate adjusted TACs is calculated). This new single-vessel-Sector share is added to the existing Sector. If a vessel leaves a Sector, that Sector's share is reduced by the individual vessel share the exiting vessel had when it joined the Sector.

(viii)A vessel may not be a member of more than one Sector. Once a vessel enters into a Sector, it cannot fish during that fishing year under the regulations that apply to the common pool. Additionally, vessels cannot shift from one Sector to another during a single fishing year. Therefore, if a vessel leaves a Sector for any reason, it cannot participate in the general category scallop fishery during the remainder of that fishing year

(2)*Allocation of TAC to Sectors.*

(i)The Sector allocation shall be equal to a percentage share of the TAC allocation for IFQ scallop vessels specified in § 648.53(a), similar to a IFQ scallop vessel's IFQ as specified in § 648.53(h). The Sector's percentage share of the IFQ scallop fishery TAC catch shall not change, but the amount of allocation based on the percentage share will change based on the TAC specified in § 648.53(a).

(ii)*Sector share determination.* When a Sector proposal is submitted, NMFS shall verify the contribution percentage as specified in § 648.53(h)(2)(iii) for each vessel listed as a Sector member. The Sector's share shall be the sum of the participating vessels' contribution percentages.

(iii)A Sector shall not be allocated more than 20 percent of the TAC for IFQ vessels specified in § 648.53(a)(5)(ii) or (iii).

(3)Once a Sector's allocation is projected to be harvested, Sector operations will be terminated for the remainder of the fishing year.

(4)If a Sector's allocation is exceeded in a given fishing year, the Sector, each vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector may be charged jointly and severally for civil penalties and permit sanction pursuant to 15 CFR part 904. If a Sector exceeds its allocation in more than one fishing year, the Sector's authorization to operate may be withdrawn.

(5)A vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in a Sector is not subject to the limit on the vessel's catch based on the vessel's own IFQ or contribution percentage as defined in § 648.53(h)(2)(iii), provided the vessel is participating in the Sector and carries on board a Letter of Authorization to participate in the Sector and exempts the vessel from its IFQ limit and any other related measures. The Sector shall determine how the Sector's allocation will be divided between its participating vessels, regardless of whether the catch by a participating vessel exceeds that vessel's own IFQ.

(6)Each vessel operator and/or vessel owner fishing under an approved Sector must comply with all scallop management measures of this part and other applicable law, unless exempted under a Letter of Authorization, as specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this section. Each vessel and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in a Sector must also comply with all applicable requirements and conditions of the Operations Plan specified in paragraph

(c)of this section and the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to paragraph (b)(11) of this section. It shall be unlawful to violate any such conditions and requirements and each Sector, vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector may be charged jointly and severally for civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant to 15 CFR part 904.

(7)Approved Sectors must submit an annual year-end report to NMFS and the Council, within 60 days of the end of the fishing year, that summarizes the fishing activities of its members, including harvest levels of all federally managed species by Sector vessels, enforcement actions, and other relevant information required to evaluate the performance of the Sector.

(8)It shall be the responsibility of each Sector to track its activity and internally enforce any provisions adopted through procedures established in the operations plan and agreed to through the Sector contract. Sector contracts should describe graduated sanctions, including grounds for expulsion of Sector member vessels. The Sector and participating Sector vessels shall be subject to NMFS enforcement action for violations of the regulations pertaining to Sectors and other regulations under 50 CFR part 648. Vessels operating within a Sector are responsible for judgments against the Sector. Sector operations plans shall specify how a Sector will monitor its landings to assure that Sector landings do not exceed the Sector allocation. At the end of the fishing year, NMFS shall evaluate landings using VMS and any other available information to determine whether a Sector has exceeded any of its allocations based on the list of participating vessels submitted in the operations plan. If a Sector exceeds its TAC, the Sector may have its authorization as a Sector withdrawn by the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the Council, and may be subject to enforcement action.

(9)Permanent or temporary transfers of allocation between Sectors or between Sector and non-Sector participants is prohibited. For purposes of harvesting a Sector allocation only, vessels under contract to a Sector are assumed to be part of that Sector for the duration of that contract.

(10)The Sector allocation proposal must contain an appropriate analysis that assesses the impact of the proposed Sector, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

(11)If a Sector is approved as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall issue a Letter of Authorization to each vessel operator and/or owner for the participating Sector vessel. The Letter of Authorization shall authorize participation in the Sector operations and may exempt the participating vessel from the requirement that the vessel cannot exceed its own IFQ and related measures. The Letter of Authorization may include requirements and conditions deemed necessary to ensure effective administration of and compliance with the Sector's operations plan and the Sector's allocation.

(c)*Operations plans.*

(1)A group that wants to form a Sector and receive an allocation must submit a legally binding operations plan to the Council and the Regional Administrator. The operations plan must be agreed upon and signed by all members of the Sector and, if approved, shall constitute a contract.

(2)The operations plan among all of the Sector members must have, at a minimum, the following components:

(i)A list of all participants;

(ii)A contract signed by all participants indicating their agreement to abide by the operations plan;

(iii)An entity name, address, phone number, and the name and contact information for a Sector representative (a manager or director) that NMFS can contact regarding Sector management issues;

(iv)A plan explaining how the Sector will harvest its allocation, including methods to inform NMFS of changes in those arrangements over the year;

(v)The original distribution of catch history of vessels in the Sector (maintaining vessel data confidentiality);

(vi)A plan detailing how the Sector will avoid exceeding its allocated TACs, including provisions for monitoring and enforcement of the Sector regulations, and documenting all landings and discards;

(vii)Rules for entry to and exit from the Sector, including sanctions and procedures for removing members who do not comply with the operations plan;

(viii)Procedure for notifying NMFS if a member is no longer part of the Sector and the reason for leaving;

(ix)The process through which the operations plan can be amended by Sector members;

(x)If the Sector plans to authorize non-Sector vessels to harvest scallops allocated to the Sector, details of such arrangements must be described in the operations plan;

(xi)Any documents and analyses necessary to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act must be submitted to NMFS. The development of the analytical document is the responsibility of the applicants.

(xii)Any other information determined to be necessary and appropriate.

(d)*Sector review, approval, and revocation.*

(1)A Sector shall submit its operations plan and any NEPA documents to the Regional Administrator and the Council no less than 1 year prior to the date that it wishes to begin operations under the Sector. The Council shall consider this plan in the course of the periodic framework adjustment or specification process and may, if approved, implement it through either of those processes. After Council approval of a Sector, the details of its operation shall be addressed between the Sector and NMFS, although the New England Fishery Management Council may review and provide comment on the proposed details.

(2)The Regional Administrator may withdraw approval of a Sector at any time if he/she, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, determines that Sector participants are not complying with the requirements of an approved operations plan or that the continuation of the operations plan will undermine achievement of fishing mortality objectives of the FMP. Withdrawal of approval of a Sector shall be completed after notice and comment rulemaking, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

(3)A Sector is required to resubmit its operations plan to the Regional Administrator no later than July 1 of each year, whether or not the plan has changed. Once the submission documents specified under paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(2) of this section have been determined to comply with the requirements of this section, NMFS may consult with the Council and shall approve or disapprove Sector operations consistent with applicable law. [FR Doc. E8-7795 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Proposed Rules Part III Department of Veterans Affairs 38 CFR Part 5 VA Benefit Claims; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 5 RIN 2900-AM16 VA Benefit Claims AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)proposes to reorganize and rewrite in plain language its regulations involving VA benefits claims. These revisions are proposed as part of VA's rewrite and reorganization of all of its compensation and pension rules in a logical, claimant-focused, and user-friendly format. The intended effect of the proposed revisions is to assist claimants and VA personnel in locating and understanding these regulations involving VA benefits claims. DATES: Comments must be received by VA on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through *www.Regulations.gov;* by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to

(202)273-9026. (This is not a toll-free number.) Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AM16-VA Benefit Claims.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call

(202)461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William F. Russo, Director of Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

(202)461-4902. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has established an Office of Regulation Policy and Management to provide centralized management and coordination of VA's rulemaking process. One of the major functions of this office is to oversee a Regulation Rewrite Project (the Project) to improve the clarity and consistency of existing VA regulations. The Project responds to a recommendation made in the October 2001 “VA Claims Processing Task Force: Report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.” The Task Force recommended that the compensation and pension regulations be rewritten and reorganized in order to improve VA's claims adjudication process. Therefore, the Project began its efforts by reviewing, reorganizing, and redrafting the content of the regulations in 38 CFR part 3 governing the compensation and pension program of the Veterans Benefits Administration. These regulations are among the most difficult VA regulations for readers to understand and apply. Once rewritten, the proposed regulations will be published in several portions for public review and comment. This is one such portion. It includes proposed rules regarding claims. After review and consideration of public comments, final versions of these proposed regulations will ultimately be published in a new part 5 in 38 CFR. Outline Overview of New Part 5 Organization Overview of This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Table Comparing Proposed Part 5 Rules With Current Part 3 Rules Content of Proposed Regulations VA Benefit Claims 5.50 Applications Furnished by VA 5.51 Filing a Claim for Disability Benefits 5.52 Filing a Claim for Death Benefits 5.53 Claims for Benefits Under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for Disability or Death Due to VA Treatment or Vocational Rehabilitation 5.54 Informal Claims 5.55 Claims Based on New and Material Evidence 5.56 Report of Examination or Hospitalization as Claim for Increase or To Reopen 5.57 Status of Claims Endnote Regarding Amendatory Language Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Regulatory Flexibility Act Executive Order 12866 Unfunded Mandates Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 5 Overview of New Part 5 Organization We plan to organize the new part 5 regulations so that most provisions governing a specific benefit are located in the same subpart, with general provisions pertaining to all compensation and pension benefits also grouped together. This organization will allow claimants, beneficiaries, and their representatives, as well as VA adjudicators, to find information relating to a specific benefit more quickly than the organization provided in current part 3. The first major subdivision would be “Subpart A—General Provisions.” It would include information regarding the scope of the regulations in new part 5, general definitions, and general policy provisions for this part. This subpart was published as proposed on March 31, 2006. * See* 71 FR 16464. “Subpart B—Service Requirements for Veterans” would include information regarding a veteran's military service, including the minimum service requirement, types of service, periods of war, and service evidence requirements. This subpart was published as proposed on January 30, 2004. *See* 69 FR 4820. “Subpart C—Adjudicative Process, General” would inform readers about claims and benefit application filing procedures, VA's duties, rights and responsibilities of claimants and beneficiaries, general evidence requirements, and general effective dates for new awards, as well as revision of decisions and protection of VA ratings. This subpart will be published as three separate Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) due to its size. The first, concerning the duties of VA and the rights and responsibilities of claimants and beneficiaries, was published as proposed on May 10, 2005. *See* 70 FR 24680. The second NPRM, concerning general evidence requirements, effective dates, revision of decisions, and protection of existing ratings, was published as proposed on May 22, 2007. *See* 72 FR 28770. This document is the third of the three NPRMs that involve regulations concerning VA benefit claims. “Subpart D—Dependents and Survivors” would inform readers how VA determines whether an individual is a dependent or a survivor for purposes of determining eligibility for VA benefits. It would also provide the evidence requirements for these determinations. This subpart was published as proposed on September 20, 2006. *See* 71 FR 55052. “Subpart E—Claims for Service Connection and Disability Compensation” would define service-connected disability compensation and service connection, including direct and secondary service connection. This subpart would inform readers how VA determines service connection and entitlement to disability compensation. The subpart would also contain those provisions governing presumptions related to service connection, rating principles, and effective dates, as well as several special ratings. This subpart will be published as three separate NPRMs due to its size. The first, concerning presumptions related to service connection, was published as proposed on July 27, 2004. *See* 69 FR 44614. “Subpart F—Nonservice-Connected Disability Pensions and Death Pensions” would include information regarding the three types of nonservice-connected pension: Old-Law Pension, Section 306 Pension, and Improved Pension. This subpart would also include those provisions that state how to establish entitlement to Improved Pension, and the effective dates governing each pension. This subpart was published as two separate NPRMs due to its size. The portion concerning Old-Law Pension, Section 306 Pension, and elections of Improved Pension was published as proposed on December 27, 2004. *See* 69 FR 77578. The portion concerning eligibility and entitlement requirements as well as effective dates for Improved Pension was published as proposed on September 26, 2007. *See* 72 FR 54776. “Subpart G—Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Death Compensation, Accrued Benefits, and Special Rules Applicable Upon Death of a Beneficiary” would contain regulations governing claims for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC); death compensation; accrued benefits; benefits awarded, but unpaid at death; and various special rules that apply to the disposition of VA benefits, or proceeds of VA benefits, when a beneficiary dies. This subpart would also include related definitions, effective date rules, and rate-of-payment rules. This subpart was published as two separate NPRMs due to its size. The portion concerning accrued benefits, death compensation, special rules applicable upon the death of a beneficiary, and several effective date rules, was published as proposed on October 1, 2004. *See* 69 FR 59072. The portion concerning DIC benefits and general provisions relating to proof of death and service-connected cause of death was published as proposed on October 21, 2005. *See* 70 FR 61326. “Subpart H—Special and Ancillary Benefits for Veterans, Dependents, and Survivors” would pertain to special and ancillary benefits available, including benefits for children with various birth defects. This subpart was published as proposed on March 9, 2007. *See* 72 FR 10860. “Subpart I—Benefits for Certain Filipino Veterans and Survivors” would pertain to the various benefits available to Filipino veterans and their survivors. This subpart was published as proposed on June 30, 2006. *See* 71 FR 37790. “Subpart J—Burial Benefits” would pertain to burial allowances. “Subpart K—Matters Affecting the Receipt of Benefits” would contain provisions regarding bars to benefits, forfeiture of benefits, and renouncement of benefits. This subpart was published as proposed on May 31, 2006. *See* 71 FR 31056. “Subpart L—Payments and Adjustments to Payments” would include general rate-setting rules, several adjustment and resumption regulations, and election-of-benefit rules. Because of its size, proposed regulations in Subpart L will be published in two separate NPRMs. The first, concerning payments to beneficiaries who are eligible for more than one benefit, was published as proposed on October 2, 2007. *See* 72 FR 56136. The final subpart, “Subpart M—Apportionments to Dependents and Payments to Fiduciaries and Incarcerated Beneficiaries,” would include regulations governing apportionments, benefits for incarcerated beneficiaries, and guardianship. Some of the regulations in this NPRM cross-reference other compensation and pension regulations. If those regulations have been published in this or earlier NPRMs for the Project, we cite the proposed part 5 section. We also include, in the relevant portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , the **Federal Register** page where a proposed part 5 section published in an earlier NPRM may be found. However, where a regulation proposed in this NPRM would cross-reference a proposed part 5 regulation that has not yet been published, we cite to the current part 3 regulation that deals with the same subject matter. The current part 3 section we cite may differ from its eventual part 5 counterpart in some respects, but we believe this method will assist readers in understanding these proposed regulations where no part 5 counterpart has yet been published. If there is no part 3 counterpart to a proposed part 5 regulation that has not yet been published, we have inserted “[regulation that will be published in a future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]” where the part 5 regulation citation would be placed. Because of its large size, proposed part 5 will be published in a number of NPRMs, such as this one. VA will not adopt any portion of part 5 as final until all of the NPRMs have been published for public comment. In connection with this rulemaking, VA will accept comments relating to a prior rulemaking issued as a part of the Project, if the matter being commented on relates to both rulemakings. Overview of This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking This NPRM pertains to VA benefits claims and related procedures. These regulations would be contained in proposed subpart C of new 38 CFR part 5. Although these regulations have been substantially restructured and rewritten for greater clarity and ease of use, most of the basic concepts contained in these proposed regulations are the same as in their existing counterparts in 38 CFR part 3. However, a few substantive differences are proposed. Table Comparing Proposed Part 5 Rules with Current Part 3 Rules The following table shows the relationship between the proposed regulations contained in this NPRM and the current regulations in part 3: Proposed part 5 section or paragraph Based in whole or in part on 38 CFR part 3 section or paragraph 5.1—Application New. 5.1—Claim 3.1(p). 5.50 3.150. 5.51 3.151(a). 5.52 3.152. 5.53 3.154. 5.54 3.155. 5.55 3.156(a), 3.400 intro, (q)(2), (r). 5.56 3.157. 5.57(a) New. 5.57(b)-(g) 3.160. Readers who use this table to compare the proposed provisions with the existing regulatory provisions, and who observe a substantive difference between them, should consult the text that appears later in this document for an explanation of significant changes in each regulation. Not every paragraph of every current part 3 section regarding the subject matter of this rulemaking is accounted for in the table. In some instances, other portions of the part 3 sections that are addressed in these proposed regulations will appear in subparts of part 5 that are being published separately for public comment. For example, a reader might find a reference to paragraph

(a)of a part 3 section in the table, but no reference to paragraph

(b)of that section because paragraph

(b)will be addressed in a separate NPRM. The table also does not include provisions from part 3 regulations that will not be repeated in part 5. Such provisions are discussed specifically under the appropriate part 5 heading in this preamble. Readers are invited to comment on the proposed part 5 provisions and also on our proposals to omit those part 3 provisions from part 5. Content of Proposed Regulations General Provisions Section 5.1 General Definitions We propose to further amend proposed § 5.1 as published in 71 FR 16464, 16473 (Mar. 31, 2006) [RIN 2900-AL87 General Provisions], to add definitions of “application” and “claim” to the general definitions in proposed § 5.1. Current § 3.1(p) and other part 3 regulations use the terms “claim” and “application” interchangeably, which we believe might confuse the user about the intended difference between a claim and an application. We propose to define the term “application” in part 5 as follows: “ *Application* means a specific form required by the Secretary that a claimant must file to apply for a benefit.” We propose to use the term “application” only when referring to a specific form that a claimant must file to apply for a benefit VA administers. By statute, a claim must be “in the form prescribed by the Secretary.” 38 U.S.C. 5101(a). Specifying that an application is “a form required,” rather than “prescribed,” should help distinguish an application from a claim. Stating the definition of “application” in § 5.1 would place it among other definitions applied generally to adjudication of entitlement to VA benefits. The term “claim” in part 5 would have the same meaning it currently has in part 3; no substantive change is intended. We propose to define “claim” as follows: “ *Claim* means a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a VA benefit.” Stating the definition of “claim” in § 5.1 would place it among other definitions generally applicable to adjudication of entitlement to VA benefits. VA Benefit Claims Section 5.50 Applications Furnished by VA Proposed § 5.50 is based on current § 3.150. It addresses situations where VA will send the appropriate application for VA benefits to a potential recipient of VA benefits. It has been slightly rewritten. The language is more active, and we have added subheadings to improve readability. Instead of referring to an “application form,” proposed § 5.50 refers to an “application” because, according to the proposed definition of “application,” an application is a form. To refer to an application form would be redundant of the definition of application. Section 3.150 requires VA to provide the appropriate application “upon request made in person or in writing by any person applying for benefits * * *.” We propose to use the language of the statute in requiring that VA furnish the appropriate application upon request by any person “claiming or applying for, or expressing an intent to claim or apply for” a benefit VA administers. 38 U.S.C. 5102(a). This is consistent with the law and proposed regulation that provides for informal claims. *Id.* ; § 5.54 of this NPRM. The change is clarifying, not substantive. In paragraph (b), we have inserted the word “death” before the words “compensation” and “pension” in the first sentence for clarification. The term “pension” in this context means “death pension.” The term “compensation” in this context means “death compensation.” Paragraph

(c)of proposed § 5.50, which is based on 38 CFR 3.150(c), is written to be consistent with proposed § 5.53, which is based on 38 CFR 3.154. The list of circumstances to which 38 U.S.C. 1151 currently applies is accurately stated in § 3.154, while the list in § 3.150(c) is outdated. We have written proposed § 5.50(c) to reflect accurately the scope of current 38 U.S.C. 1151. Section 5.51 Filing a Claim for Disability Benefits Proposed § 5.51 is based on current § 3.151(a). (Paragraph

(b)of current § 3.151 has been included in § 5.383, which was published as proposed on September 26, 2007. See 72 FR 54776, 54793-94 [RIN 2900-AM04 Improved Pension].) The content of paragraph

(a)of § 3.151 is rewritten in plain language, and is split into two paragraphs, with appropriate headings, for improved readability. Section 5.52 Filing a Claim for Death Benefits Proposed § 5.52 is based on current § 3.152. In proposed § 5.52(a), we have changed the reference to § 3.153 to proposed § 5.131(a) (published as proposed on May 22, 2007, *see* 72 FR 28770, 28785 [RIN 2900-AM01 General Evidence Requirements, Effective Dates, Revision of Decisions, and Protection of Existing Ratings]), and we have changed the reference to § 3.400(c) to proposed § 5.567 (published as proposed on October 1, 2004, *see* 69 FR 59072, 59089-90 [RIN 2900-AL71 Accrued Benefits, Death Compensation, and Special Rules Applicable Upon Death of a Beneficiary]). Paragraph

(b)of proposed § 5.52 is based on paragraph

(b)of current § 3.152 and is slightly rewritten and reorganized so that it is more readable. It addresses when VA will treat a claim for a certain death benefit as a claim for another death benefit as well. For example, VA will treat a claim for death compensation as a claim for death pension as well. Regarding accrued benefits, current § 3.152(b) includes provisions for treating certain claims for death benefits as claims for accrued benefits as well. These provisions addressing claims for accrued benefits are not included in proposed § 5.52(b) because a similar provision already appears in proposed § 5.552(c), “Claims for accrued benefits or benefits awarded, but unpaid at death,” which was published as proposed on October 1, 2004. ( *See* 69 FR 59072, 59086 [RIN 2900-AL71 Accrued Benefits, Death Compensation, and Special Rules Applicable Upon Death of a Beneficiary]). Proposed § 5.552(c) provides that any claim filed with VA for death pension, death compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation will also be accepted as a claim for accrued benefits and, if applicable, for benefits awarded, but unpaid at death. *Id.* Thus, it is not necessary to include similar provisions in proposed § 5.52. Paragraph

(c)of proposed § 5.52 is based on paragraph

(c)of current § 3.152 and is rewritten for improved readability. Appropriate subheadings have also been added. The last sentence of current § 3.152(c)(1) states that “[w]here the award to the surviving spouse is terminated by reason of her or his death, a claim for the child will be considered a claim for any accrued benefits which may be payable.” For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, we propose not to repeat that rule in § 5.52 because it would be redundant of the rule in proposed § 5.552(c). Current § 3.152(c)(1) cites 38 U.S.C. 5110(e). This citation is as authority for the regulation, not as a cross-reference. In proposed § 5.52(c)(1) and (c)(2), we have moved this citation to the authority citation following § 5.52. Current § 3.152(c)(1) provides that a child must file a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation under certain circumstances. It has long been VA's practice to implement paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of that section as exceptions to the claim filing requirement of paragraph (c)(1) of that section. The exception in § 3.152(c)(3) applies when VA denies DIC to a surviving spouse. The exception in current paragraph (c)(4) applies when VA discontinues payment of death benefits to a surviving spouse because of the death or remarriage of the surviving spouse, or when a child becomes eligible for DIC by turning 18. In the circumstances described in current paragraph (c)(3), VA construes the surviving spouse's claim as the claim of the child named in the surviving spouse's claim. In the circumstances described in current paragraph (c)(4), VA converts the surviving spouse's claim into a claim on behalf of the child named in the surviving spouse's claim. VA construes or converts the surviving spouse's claim in the circumstances described in current paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4), respectively, if and only if any necessary evidence is submitted within 1 year after VA requests the evidence. Otherwise each child must file a new claim. These exceptions are stated explicitly in proposed § 5.52(c)(1) and (c)(2). The exceptions are consistent with 38 U.S.C. § 5110(e), because they construe the surviving spouse's claim as the child's claim in the circumstances described. Construed this way, the surviving spouse's claim satisfies the date of claim requirement of 5110(e). Current § 3.152 uses the terms “child” and “children” interchangeably. In § 5.52 we propose to use only the term “child”, which encompasses both the singular and plural, for consistency. No substantive change is intended. Section 5.53 Claims for Benefits Under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for Disability or Death Due to VA Treatment or Vocational Rehabilitation Section 5.53 is based on current § 3.154, pertaining to claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for disability or death due to treatment in a VA facility or due to a VA vocational rehabilitation program. Proposed § 5.53 contains only minor stylistic changes, as well as a change in title. The new title is more accurate and descriptive. The cross-reference in proposed § 5.53 differs from the cross-reference in current § 3.154 in that only those provisions that apply to claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 that are received by VA after September 30, 1997, are included. Current §§ 3.358 and 3.800 apply to claims under 38 U.S.C. 1151(a) that VA received before October 1, 1997. Because part 5 will apply only to future claims, we will not repeat the provisions of current §§ 3.358 and 3.800 in part 5. Section 5.54 Informal Claims Proposed § 5.54 is based on current § 3.155, pertaining to informal claims. Paragraph

(a)of this section refers to an “application” instead of an “application form” to be consistent with the proposed definition of “application.” To use plain language, we have changed the Latin expression, “ *sui juris* ,” in the phrase “a claimant who is not *sui juris* ” to its English meaning, “a claimant who does not have the capacity to manage his or her own affairs”. We intend no substantive change. Further, the references to §§ 3.151 and 3.152 have been changed to their proposed part 5 counterparts, §§ 5.51 and 5.52 of this NPRM, respectively. In paragraph (b), we have added the word “recognized” before “service organization” and the word “accredited” before “attorney or agent” to be consistent with part 14 of this chapter. We have also made explicit that the recognized service organization or accredited individual submitting an informal claim must be the designated representative of the claimant “as required by § 14.631 of this chapter”. Section 5.55 Claims Based on New and Material Evidence Proposed § 5.55(a) is based on current § 3.156(a). No changes are proposed to this provision. Paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of current § 3.156 are not included in proposed § 5.55. They have been included in § 5.153 and § 5.166 respectively, which were published as proposed, in a separate NPRM, on May 22, 2007. *See* 72 FR 28770, 28789, 28791 [RIN 2900-AM01 General Evidence Requirements, Effective Dates, Revision of Decisions, and Protection of Existing Ratings]. Paragraph

(b)of proposed § 5.55 consolidates the effective date rules for claims reopened based on new and material evidence. The rules are currently found in the introduction to § 3.400 and in § 3.400(q)(2) and (r). Current § 3.400(q)(2) provides that when new and material evidence is submitted after a claim has been finally disallowed, VA will assign the effective date of an award based on the “[d]ate of receipt of new claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later.” That rule is substantively identical to the general rule governing the effective date for an award based on “a claim reopened after final disallowance” set forth in the introductory text of § 3.400. The same rule is stated a third time in § 3.400(r). Proposed § 5.55(b) consolidates these provisions into one rule: “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, if VA reopens a finally denied claim on the basis of new and material evidence and awards the benefit sought, the award is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date that VA received the claim to reopen, whichever is later.” Throughout this proposed rulemaking, we use the terms “deny” or “denied” instead of “disallow” or “disallowed” because we believe the former is easier for the public to understand. No substantive change is intended by this use of terminology. Section 5.56 Report of Examination or Hospitalization as Claim for Increase or To Reopen Section 5.56 is based on current § 3.157. It has been slightly reorganized. Proposed paragraph § 5.56(a) is based on the second sentence of current § 3.157(a). The first sentence of current § 3.157(a) has not been repeated, since it is redundant of the general effective date rule in proposed § 5.150. The third sentence of current § 3.157(a), which contains a provision on liberalizing laws or VA issues, is now in a new paragraph

(d)of proposed § 5.56. In paragraph (d), the reference to § 3.114 has been changed to the proposed part 5 counterpart, § 5.152, which was published as proposed on May 22, 2007. *See* 72 FR 28770, 28789 [RIN 2900-AM01 General Evidence Requirements, Effective Dates, Revision of Decisions, and Protection of Existing Ratings]. Proposed paragraph

(b)is based on the introductory paragraph of current § 3.157(b) and is split into three subparagraphs. Proposed paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) are based on current § 3.157(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The regulation has also been rewritten in plain language and subheadings have been added for greater readability. There are no substantive changes. Section 5.57 Status of Claims Proposed § 5.57 is based on current § 3.160, which provides definitions of informal claim, original claim, pending claim, finally adjudicated claim, reopened claim, and claim for increase, respectively. Proposed § 5.57 includes a new paragraph, (a), defining “formal claim”. In proposed paragraph

(a)we define “formal claim” as “A claim filed on the application required for a specific benefit.” VA has implicitly defined “formal claim” in current § 3.155(a) with the language, “Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution.” The term “formal claim” also appears in current §§ 3.154 and 3.157(b). The new definition in § 5.57(a) makes the implicit definition explicit and clarifies the relationship between a claim and an application, as those terms are defined in proposed § 5.1. In § 5.57(b) through (g), we propose to use slightly different language in our definitions of “original claim,” “pending claim,” “finally adjudicated claim,” “reopened claim,” and “claim for increase” than is used in § 3.160. Because we propose to distinguish an application from a claim, as discussed above under § 5.50, we have modified the language; instead of defining them as “application[s],” we propose to define them as “claim[s]” and describe their distinguishing characteristics. In the definitions of “finally adjudicated claim” and “pending claim” we have not repeated unnecessary language referring to “formal or informal” claims. No substantive changes are proposed. Endnote Regarding Amendatory Language We intend to ultimately remove part 3 entirely, but we are not including amendatory language to accomplish that at this time. VA will provide public notice before removing part 3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Although this document contains provisions constituting a collection of information, at 38 CFR §§ 5.51, 5.52, 5.54, 5.55, and 5.56, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this proposed rule. The information collection requirements for §§ 5.51, 5.52, 5.54, 5.55, and 5.56 are approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0001, 2900-0003, 2900-0004, 2900-0005, and 2900-0006. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed amendment would not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this proposal are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; 64.101, Burial Expenses Allowance for Veterans; 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and Children; 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death; 64.115, Veterans Information and Assistance; and 64.127, Monthly Allowance for Children of Vietnam Veterans Born with Spina Bifida. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 5 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Approved: December 26, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA proposes to further amend 38 CFR part 5, as proposed to be added at 69 FR 4832, January 30, 2004, and as further proposed to be amended at 70 FR 24680, May 10, 2005; 71 FR 16464, March 31, 2006; and 72 FR 28770, May 22, 2007, as follows: PART 5—COMPENSATION, PENSION, BURIAL, AND RELATED BENEFITS Subpart A—General Provisions 1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in specific sections. 2. Section 5.1 is amended by adding definitions of “application” and “claim” in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 5.1 General definitions. *Application* means a specific form required by the Secretary that a claimant must file to apply for a benefit. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a)) *Claim* means a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a VA benefit. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5100) Subpart C—Adjudicative Process, General 3. The authority citation for part 5, subpart C, continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in specific sections. 4. Sections 5.50 through 5.57 and their undesignated center heading are added to subpart C to read as follows: Subpart C—Adjudicative Process, General VA Benefit Claims Sec. 5.50 Applications furnished by VA. 5.51 Filing a claim for disability benefits. 5.52 Filing a claim for death benefits. 5.53 Claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for disability or death due to VA treatment or vocational rehabilitation. 5.54 Informal claims. 5.55 Claims based on new and material evidence. 5.56 Report of examination or hospitalization as claim for increase or to reopen. 5.57 Status of claims. 5.58-5.79 [Reserved] Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in specific sections. Subpart C—Adjudicative Process, General VA Benefit Claims § 5.50 Applications furnished by VA.

(a)*General.* Upon request in person or in writing, VA will furnish the appropriate application to a person claiming or applying for, or expressing intent to claim or apply for, benefits under the laws administered by VA.

(b)*VA will furnish an application to a dependent upon the death of a veteran.* Upon the receipt of notice of the death of a veteran, VA will forward the appropriate application for execution by or on behalf of any dependent who has apparent entitlement to death compensation, death pension, or dependency and indemnity compensation. If it is not indicated that any person would be entitled to such benefits, but an accrued benefit that has not been paid during the veteran's lifetime is payable, VA will forward the appropriate application to the preferred dependent. VA will include notice of the time limit for filing a claim for accrued benefits in letters accompanying applications for such benefits. Cross Reference: Extension of time limit. *See* § 3.109(b) of this chapter.

(c)*VA will not forward an application for claims for disability or death due to hospital treatment, medical or surgical treatment, examination, or training.* When disability or death is due to VA hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, examination, training and rehabilitation services, or compensated work therapy program, VA will not forward an application for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151. ( *See* § 5.53 for the requirements for filing a claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1151.) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5101, 5102) § 5.51 Filing a claim for disability benefits.

(a)*A claim must be filed in order for benefits to be paid.* An individual must file a specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary in order for disability benefits to be paid under the laws administered by VA.

(b)*Claims for compensation or pension.* VA may consider a claim for compensation as a claim for pension also, and VA may consider a claim for pension as a claim for compensation also. VA will award the greater benefit, unless the claimant specifically elects the lesser benefit. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5101(a)) Cross References: Definition of claim. *See* § 5.1. Informal claims. *See* § 5.54. § 5.52 Filing a claim for death benefits.

(a)*Form of claim.* An individual must file a specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary (or jointly with the Commissioner of Social Security, as prescribed by § 5.131(a)) in order for death benefits to be paid under the laws administered by VA. ( *See* §§ 5.431 and 5.567 concerning effective dates of awards of improved death pension and of DIC, respectively.) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5101(a))

(b)*VA treats certain claims as claims for more than one benefit.*

(1)A claim by a surviving spouse or child for death compensation will also be considered a claim for death pension.

(2)A claim by a surviving spouse or child for dependency and indemnity compensation

(DIC)will also be considered a claim for death pension.

(3)A claim by a surviving spouse or child for death pension will also be considered a claim for DIC and, if the veteran died before January 1, 1957, for death compensation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5101(b)(1))

(c)*Claims for death benefits by, or on behalf of, a child.*

(1)*Child turns 18 years old.* Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section, where a child's entitlement to DIC arises by reason of the child turning 18 years old, a claim will be required.

(2)*Termination of a surviving spouse's right to DIC.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, when a surviving spouse's right to DIC is terminated, a child's entitlement to DIC in his or her own right arises and a claim is required.

(3)*When a surviving spouse does not have entitlement.* When a claim is filed by a surviving spouse who does not have entitlement, VA will accept the claim as a claim for a child in the surviving spouse's custody, if the child is named in the claim.

(4)*Effective date when a surviving spouse's claim is denied.* If VA denies a claim of a surviving spouse for any reason whatsoever, an award for a child named in the surviving spouse's claim will be made as though the denied claim had been filed solely on the child's behalf, provided that evidence requested from the child in order to determine entitlement is submitted within 1 year after the date of such request. This provision applies regardless whether the evidence was requested before or after VA denied the surviving spouse's claim. If the evidence requested is not submitted within 1 year after the date of VA's request, payments may not be made for the child for any period prior to the date of receipt of a new claim.

(5)*Effective date when a surviving spouse's claim is converted to a claim on behalf of a child.* Where payments of death pension, death compensation, or DIC to a surviving spouse have been discontinued because of remarriage or death, or where a child becomes eligible for DIC by reason of turning 18 years old, and any necessary evidence is submitted within 1 year after the date of a request from VA, an award for the child named in the surviving spouse's claim will be made on the basis of the surviving spouse's claim having been converted to a claim on behalf of the child. Otherwise, payments may not be made for any period prior to the date of receipt of a new claim from the child. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5110(e)) Cross Reference: Other claims accepted as a claim for accrued benefits or benefits awarded, but unpaid at death. *See* § 5.552(c). § 5.53 Claims for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for disability or death due to VA treatment or vocational rehabilitation. VA may accept as a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 and § 3.361 of this chapter any communication in writing indicating an intent to file a claim for disability compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation

(DIC)under the laws governing entitlement to VA benefits for disability or death due to VA hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, examination, training and rehabilitation services, or compensated work therapy program. Such communication may be contained in a formal claim for pension, disability compensation, or DIC, or in any other document. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1151) Cross References: Effective dates. *See* § 3.400(i) of this chapter. Injury or death due to hospitalization and treatment, including effective dates. *See* §§ 3.361 to 3.363 of this chapter. § 5.54 Informal claims.

(a)Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, from a claimant, his or her duly authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a claimant who does not have the capacity to manage his or her own affairs may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within 1 year after the date it was sent to the claimant, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim.

(b)A communication received from a recognized service organization, or an accredited attorney or agent may not be accepted as an informal claim if a power of attorney as required by § 14.631 of this chapter was not executed at the time the communication was written.

(c)When a claim has been filed which meets the requirements of § 5.51 or § 5.52, an informal request for increase or reopening will be accepted as a claim. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5102(a)) § 5.55 Claims based on new and material evidence.

(a)*New and material evidence.* A claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

(b)*Effective date.* Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, if VA reopens a finally denied claim on the basis of new and material evidence and awards the benefit sought, the award is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date that VA received the claim to reopen, whichever is later. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5103A(f), 5108, 5110(a)) Cross Reference: *See* § 20.1304(b)(1)(i) of this title for the rule on effective date assigned when evidence is submitted to the Board of Veterans' Appeals during a pending appeal. § 5.56 Report of examination or hospitalization as claim for increase or to reopen.

(a)*General.* A report of examination or hospitalization that meets the requirements of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for benefits under an existing law or for benefits under a liberalizing law or VA issue, if the report relates to a disability which may establish entitlement.

(b)*Requirements* —(1) *Prior claim for pension or disability compensation allowed, or prior claim for compensation denied because the service-connected disability was not compensable in degree.* Once a formal claim for pension or disability compensation has been allowed, or once a formal claim for disability compensation has been denied because the service-connected disability is not compensable in degree, receipt of evidence as described in paragraph

(c)of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits or an informal claim to reopen.

(2)*Prior claim for pension or compensation denied because the veteran is receiving retirement pay.* If a formal claim for pension or compensation from a retired member of a uniformed service has been denied because the veteran was receiving retirement pay, receipt of evidence as described in paragraph

(c)of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for pension or compensation.

(3)*Prior claim for pension denied because the disability was not permanently and totally disabling.* If a claim for pension has been denied because the disability was not permanently and totally disabling, receipt of evidence as described in paragraph

(c)of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for pension.

(c)*Evidence* —(1) *Report of examination or hospitalization by VA or uniformed services.*

(i)*General.* The provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section apply only when the reports described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service-connection has previously been established or when a claim specifying the benefit sought is received within 1 year after the date of an examination, treatment, or hospital admission described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii)*Date of claim.* The date of the outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA or uniformed services hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of the claim. In the case of a uniformed service examination which is the basis for granting severance pay to a former member of the Armed Forces on the temporary disability retired list, the date of the examination will be accepted as the date of receipt of the claim. In the case of an admission to a non-VA hospital where a veteran was maintained at VA expense, the date of admission will be accepted as the date of receipt of claim, if VA maintenance was previously authorized. If VA maintenance was authorized after admission, the date VA received notice of admission will be the date of receipt of the claim.

(2)*Evidence from a private physician or layman* —(i) *General.* Evidence from a private physician or layman will be accepted when the evidence furnished by or on behalf of the claimant is within the competence of the physician or lay person and shows a reasonable probability of entitlement to benefits.

(ii)*Date of claim.* The date that VA received such evidence will be accepted as the date of claim.

(3)*Evidence from State and other institutions* —(i) *General.* Examination reports, clinical records, or transcripts of records from State, county, municipal, or recognized private institutions, or other Government hospitals (except those described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) will be accepted, provided the following requirements are met. These records must be authenticated by an appropriate official of the institution. Benefits will be granted if the records are adequate for rating purposes; otherwise findings will be verified by official examination. Reports received from private institutions not listed by the American Hospital Association must be certified by the Chief Medical Officer of VA or physician designee.

(ii)*Date of claim.* When submitted by or on behalf of the veteran and entitlement is shown, the date VA received such evidence will be accepted as the date of the claim.

(d)*Liberalizing law or VA issue.* Acceptance of a report of examination or treatment as a claim for increase or to reopen is subject to the requirements of § 5.152 with respect to action on VA initiative or at the request of the claimant and the payment of retroactive benefits from the date of the report or for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of the report. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) § 5.57 Status of claims. The following definitions are applicable to claims for pension, disability compensation, and dependency and indemnity compensation.

(a)*Formal claim.* A claim filed on the application required for a specific benefit.

(b)*Informal claim.* *See* § 5.54.

(c)*Original claim.* An initial formal claim. (See §§ 5.51 and 5.52.)

(d)*Pending claim.* A claim which has not been finally adjudicated.

(e)*Finally adjudicated claim.* A claim which has been allowed or denied by the agency of original jurisdiction, the action having become final by the expiration of 1 year after the date of notice of an award or denial, or by denial on appellate review, whichever is the earlier. ( *See* §§ 20.1103 and 20.1104 of this chapter.)

(f)*Reopened claim.* Any claim for a benefit received after a final denial of an earlier claim, or any claim based on additional evidence or a request for a personal hearing submitted more than 90 days after notice is provided to the appellant of the certification of an appeal and transfer of applicable records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals which was not considered by the Board in its decision and was referred to the agency of original jurisdiction for consideration as provided in § 20.1304(b)(1) of this chapter.

(g)*Claim for increase.* Any claim for an increase in rate of a benefit being paid under a current award, or for resumption of payments previously discontinued. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) §§ 5.58-5.79 [Reserved] [FR Doc. E8-7898 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 73 72 Monday, April 14, 2008 Presidential Documents Part IV The President Proclamation 8236—Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 2008 Title 3— The President Proclamation 8236 of April 10, 2008 Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 2008 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation On Pan American Day and during Pan American Week, we underscore the importance of a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous Western Hemisphere where our common values continue to strengthen friendships, advance freedom, and encourage fair trade. The love of liberty is deeply rooted in our hemisphere. In the earliest days of our Republic, the people of the United States inspired patriots throughout the Americas to take their own stand for independence. Today, the decent and honorable people of both American continents are united in the desire for freedom and democracy. The United States stands with those who respect human rights and those who seek to bring change and hope to their countries. We look forward to the day when all of the Americas are wholly free and democratic. My Administration remains committed to helping our friends as they advance the cause of justice and economic opportunity throughout the Western Hemisphere. Through Millennium Challenge Compacts, we support development in countries that govern justly, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom. In addition, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, signed in 2005, has opened markets and created opportunities for American businesses, strengthened economic ties with our neighbors to the south, and brought hope to people so that they can better care for themselves and for their families. In December of 2007, I signed the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act to bring economic gains for both of our countries, empower workers, and foster accountability and the rule of law. We seek to build on these successes by working with the Congress to approve the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. These and other free trade agreements enhance prosperity in the United States and signal our firm support for those who share our values of freedom and democracy. As we recognize Pan American Day and Pan American Week, we will continue to work together to advance our common interests and build a future in which opportunity reaches into every community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 14, 2008, as Pan American Day and April 13 through April 19, 2008, as Pan American Week. I urge the Governors of the 50 States, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the officials of other areas under the flag of the United States of America to honor these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 08-1132 Filed 4-11-08; 9:29 am]

Connectionstraces to 69

Traces to 69 documents

U.S. Code