Notices. Final rule

66,822 words·~304 min read·/register/2008/04/18/08-1150

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

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 748 and 774 [Docket No. 080307395-8515-01] RIN 0694-AE32 Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations Based Upon a Systematic Review of the CCL AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to make various technical corrections and clarifications to the EAR as a result of a systematic review of the Commerce Control List

(CCL)that was conducted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). This rule is the first phase of the regulatory implementation of the results of a review of the CCL that was conducted by BIS starting in 2007. The BIS CCL review benefited from input received from BIS's Technical Advisory Committees

(TACs)and comments that were received from the interested public in response to the publication of a BIS notice of inquiry on July 17, 2007 (72 FR 39052). DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective: April 18, 2008. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE32, by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* Include “RIN 0694-AE32” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:*

(202)482-3355. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling

(202)482-2440, if you are faxing comments. *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Timothy Mooney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, *Attn:* RIN 0694-AE32. Send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to

(202)395-7285; and to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230. Comments on this collection of information should be submitted separately from comments on the final rule ( *i.e.* RIN 0694-AE32)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; by telephone:

(202)482-2440; or by fax: 202-482-3355. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to make various technical corrections and clarifications to the EAR as a result of a systematic review of the Commerce Control List

(CCL)that was conducted by the Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)beginning in 2007. This rule is the first phase of the regulatory implementation of the results of that review. This rule focuses on making needed technical corrections and clarifications to the CCL. The BIS CCL review benefited from input received from BIS's Technical Advisory Committees

(TACs)and public comments received in response to a BIS notice of inquiry (July 17, 2007, 72 FR 39052). BIS intends to publish another rule later this year that will implement the second phase of the regulatory implementation of the results of that systematic review of the CCL. That rule is tentatively titled, “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations based upon a Systematic Review of the Commerce Control List” (RIN: 0694-AE33). That second rule will include substantive changes to the CCL. As a part of the implementation phase of the CCL review, the agency is also taking other non-regulatory actions to improve the public's understanding of the CCL. These BIS actions involve publishing certain advisory opinions and creating new web guidance to provide greater clarity to exporters and reexporters regarding existing provisions of the CCL. BIS has also created a new process whereby BIS has stated its intention to conduct similar types of systematic reviews of the CCL in the future in order to continuously improve the CCL. This rule makes the following technical revision to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): In Supplement No. 1 to Part 748 (BIS-748P, BIS-748P-A; Item Appendix, and BIS-748P-B; End-User Appendix; Multipurpose Application Instructions), this rule amends the instructions for “Block 6: Documents submitted with application”, to provide guidance to applicants who wish to include foreign availability support material for items not controlled for national security reasons. This new instruction guidance under Block 6 explains the procedure applicants should follow for submitting this information. The purpose of submitting this foreign availability information would be to make the U.S. Government more aware of the foreign availability of items not controlled for national security reasons. In addition, this rule makes the following technical revisions to the Commerce Control List

(CCL)(Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR):

(1)This rule revises the “Related Controls” paragraphs in the following twenty-four CCL entries: 0A018, 1A001, 1A003, 1A005, 1C004, 1C006, 1C008, 1C009, 1C011, 1C012, 1D001, 1D018, 1E002, 2A983, 2B004, 2B005, 2E101, 2E201, 3A002, 3B002, 3B992, 3D002, 4D003, and 5E002 by adding additional related controls references or making changes for greater specificity for the related controls references. BIS includes related controls references in CCL entries to assist exporters in classifying items on the CCL and in some cases provides cross-references for items that are listed on the CCL, but are under the export control jurisdiction of other U.S. Government agencies. Several of the public comments received by BIS, as a part of the CCL review process, requested that BIS add these types of additional related controls references to better assist the public in classifying their items using the CCL.

(2)This rule is also amending the “Unit” paragraph in the following fourteen CCL entries: 1B003, 2B001, 2B003, 2B004, 4A001, 4A003, 4A004, 5B001, 6A002, 6A004, 6A005, 8A001, 9A004, and 9B009. Several of the comments received by BIS, as a part of the CCL review process, requested that changes be made to the “Unit” paragraphs of certain CCL entries, so that the unit of measurement in the “Unit” paragraphs would conform to standard quantities for the items controlled in those respective CCL entries. BIS agreed that these technical corrections should be made to the CCL in order to ensure that the “Unit” paragraphs conformed with the items controlled in those CCL entries.

(3)In three CCL entries, 6D003, 8D001 and 8E001, this rule removes outdated references in the “License Exceptions” section of each of these CCL entries that had incorrectly referred to License Exception TSR non-availability for items under those CCL entries controlled for Missile Technology

(MT)reasons. None of these three CCL entries is controlled for MT reasons, so the reference to the restriction on the use of License Exception TSR in these CCL entries is outdated and confusing. This rule corrects that by removing the outdated reference to the MT restriction in each of these CCL entries. Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. The changes made by this rule are not substantive changes, but rather are updates to cross-references, conformance of units of measure to item descriptions, and removal of outdated references. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 748 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 774 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 748 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows: PART 748—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 2. Supplement No. 1 to part 748 is amended by revising “Block 6: Documents submitted with Application”, to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 748 BIS-748P, BIS-748P-A: Item Appendix, and BIS-748P-B; End-User Appendix; Multipurpose Application Instructions Block 6: Documents submitted with Application. Review the documentation you are required to submit with your application in accordance with the provisions of part 748 of the EAR, and mark all applicable Boxes with an (X). Mark the Box “Foreign Availability” with an

(X)if you are submitting an assertion of foreign availability with your license application. See part 768 of the EAR for instructions on foreign availability submissions. If you are *not* making a foreign availability assertion under part 768 of the EAR, you may still mark the box “Foreign Availability” with an (X), if you are submitting an assertion of foreign availability with your license application. Foreign availability assertions covered under part 768 are limited to items controlled for national security reasons. However, if an applicant intends to include foreign availability support material for items not controlled for national security reasons, applicants are permitted to do this as part of the license application by marking the box “Foreign Availability” with an

(X)and including the foreign availability information, along with the support material for the license application. Applicants must clearly label this support material as “Foreign availability information—outside the scope of part 768”. Although this information is outside the scope of part 768, applicants should still use Supplement No. 1 to part 768 for general guidance regarding what types of information may be suitable for demonstrating foreign availability. The purpose of submitting this type of foreign availability information will be to make the U.S. Government more aware of the foreign availability of items not controlled for national security reasons. Mark the “Tech. Specs.” box with an

(X)if you are submitting descriptive literature, brochures, technical specifications, etc. with your application. PART 774—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* , 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 4. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 0—Nuclear Materials, Facilities, and Equipment [and Miscellaneous Items], Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)0A018 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 0A018 Items on the Wassenaar Munitions List. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)See § 746.8(b)(1) for additional BIS licensing requirements for Rwanda concerning this entry.

(2)See also 0A979, 0A988, and 22 CFR 121.1 Categories I(a), III(b-d), and X(a). 5. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1A001 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1A001 Components Made From Fluorinated Compounds, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)Items specially designed or modified for missiles or for items on the U.S. Munitions List are subject to the export licensing authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see 22 CFR 121.1 Category XXI).

(2)See also 1C009. 6. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1A003 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1A003 Manufactures of Non-Fluorinated Polymeric Substances Controlled by 1C008.a.3 in Film, Sheet, Tape or Ribbon Form With Either of the Following Characteristics (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* This entry does not control manufactures when coated or laminated with copper and designed for the production of electronic printed circuit boards. See also 1C008. 7. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1A005 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1A005 Body Armor, and Specially Designed Components Therefor, Not Manufactured to Military Standards or Specifications, Nor to Their Equivalents in Performance. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)Bulletproof and bullet resistant vests (body armor) NIJ levels III and IV, are subject to the export licensing authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see 22 CFR 121.1 Categories X(a) and XIV(f, h)).

(2)For “fibrous or filamentary materials” used in the manufacture of body armor, see ECCN 1C010.

(3)See § 746.8(b)(1) for additional licensing requirements concerning this entry. 8. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1B003 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1B003 Tools, Dies, Molds or Fixtures, for “Superplastic Forming” or “Diffusion Bonding” Titanium or Aluminum or Their Alloys, Specially Designed for the Manufacture of (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Tools in number; dies, molds, or fixtures in $ value 9. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C004 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C004 Uranium Titanium Alloys or Tungsten Alloys With a “Matrix” Based on Iron, Nickel or Copper, Having All of the Characteristics (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 1C117 and 1C226. 10. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C006 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C006 Fluids and Lubricating Materials, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 1C996. 11. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C008 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C008 Non-Fluorinated Polymeric Substances, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 1A003. 12. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C009 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C009 Unprocessed Fluorinated Compounds, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 1A001. 13. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C011 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C011 Metals and Compounds, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)See also 1C018 and 1C111.

(2)Items controlled by 1C011.a, and metal fuels in particle form, whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or ground, manufactured from material consisting of 99 percent or more of items controlled by 1C011.b. are subject to the export licensing authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see 22 CFR 121.1 Category V). 14. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C012 is amended by revising the “Reason for Control” paragraph in the License Requirements section and the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1C012 Materials, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). License Requirements *Reason for Control:* Control(s) Items described in 1C012 are subject to the export licensing authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see 10 CFR part 110, item 9A)). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 0C002. 15. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1D001 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1D001 “Software” Specially Designed or Modified for the “Development”, “Production” or “Use” of Equipment Controlled by 1B001 to 1B003. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)See ECCNs 1E101 (“use”) and 1E102 (“development” and “production”) for technology for items controlled by this entry.

(2)Also see 1D002, 1D101, 1D201, and 1D999. 16. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1D018 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1D018 “Software” Specially Designed or Modified for the “Development”, “Production”, or “Use” of Items Controlled by 1B018. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* $ value *Related Controls:* See § 746.8(b)(1) for additional BIS licensing requirements for Rwanda concerning this entry. 17. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms,” & Toxins, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1E002 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 1E002 Other “Technology”, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 1E001, 1E101,1E102, 1E202, and 1E994 for “technology” related to 1E002.e or .f. 18. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2A983 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2A983 Explosives or Detonator Detection Equipment, Both Bulk and Trace Based, Consisting of an Automated Device, or Combination of Devices for Automated Decision Making to Detect the Presence of Different Types of Explosives, Explosive Residue, or Detonators; and Parts and Components, n.e.s. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* Also see 1A004 and 1A995. 19. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2B001 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2B001 Machine Tools and Any Combination Thereof, for Removing (or cutting) Metals, Ceramics or “Composites”, Which, According to the Manufacturer's Technical Specifications, Can Be Equipped With Electronic Devices for “Numerical control”; and Specially Designed Components (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Machine tools in number; components in $ value 20. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2B003 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2B003 “Numerically Controlled” or Manual Machine Tools, and Specially Designed Components, Controls and Accessories Therefor, Specially Designed for the Shaving, Finishing, Grinding or Honing of Hardened (R c = 40 or More) Spur, Helical and Double-Helical Gears With a Pitch Diameter Exceeding 1,250 mm and a Face Width of 15% of Pitch Diameter or Larger Finished to a Quality of AGMA 14 or Better (Equivalent to ISO 1328 class 3). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Machine Tools in number; components, controls and accessories in $ value 21. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2B004 is amended by revising the “Unit” and “Related Controls” paragraphs in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2B004 Hot “Isostatic Presses”, Having All of the Characteristics Described in the List of Items Controlled, and Specially Designed Components and Accessories Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Presses in number; components and accessories in $ value *Related Controls:*

(1)See ECCN 2D001 for software for items controlled under this entry.

(2)See ECCNs 2E001 (“development”), 2E002 (“production”), and 2E101 (“use”) for technology for items controlled under this entry.

(3)For specially designed dies, molds and tooling, see ECCNs 1B003, 2B018, 9B004, and 9B009.

(4)For additional controls on dies, molds and tooling, see ECCNs 1B101.d, 2B104 and 2B204.

(5)Also see ECCNs 2B117 and 2B999.a. 22. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2B005 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2B005 Equipment Specially Designed for the Deposition, Processing and In-Process Control of Inorganic Overlays, Coatings and Surface Modifications, as Follows, for Non-Electronic Substrates, by Processes Shown in the Table and Associated Notes Following 2E003.f, and Specially Designed Automated Handling, Positioning, Manipulation and Control Components Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)This entry does not control chemical vapor deposition, cathodic arc, sputter deposition, ion plating or ion implantation equipment specially designed for cutting or machining tools.

(2)Vapor deposition equipment for the production of filamentary materials are controlled by 1B001 or 1B101.

(3)Chemical Vapor Deposition furnaces designed or modified for densification of carbon-carbon composites are controlled by 2B104.

(4)See also 2B999.i. 23. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2E101 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2E101 “Technology” According to the General Technology Note for the “Use” of Equipment or “Software” Controlled by 2B004, 2B009, 2B104, 2B105, 2B109, 2B116, 2B117, 2B119 to 2B122, 2D001, 2D002 or 2D101. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:*

(1)This entry controls only “technology” for 2B009 and 2B109 for spin forming machines combining the functions of spin forming and flow forming, and flow forming machines.

(2)Also see 2E201. 24. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)2E201 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 2E201 “Technology” According to the General Technology Note for the “Use” of Equipment or “Software” Controlled by 2A225, 2A226, 2B001, 2B006, 2B007.b, 2B007.c, 2B201, 2B204, 2B206, 2B207, 2B209, 2B225 to 2B232, 2D002, 2D201 or 2D202 for NP Reasons. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* Also see 2E290 and 2E991. 25. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 3—Electronics, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)3A002 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 3A002 General Purpose Electronic Equipment, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* “Space qualified” atomic frequency standards defined in 3A002.g.2 are subject to the export licensing authority of the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (22 CFR 121.1 Category XV). See also 3A292 and 3A992. 26. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 3—Electronics, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)3B002 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 3B002 Test Equipment, Specially Designed for Testing Finished or Unfinished Semiconductor Devices, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled), and Specially Designed Components and Accessories Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 3A999.a and 3B992. 27. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 3—Electronics, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)3B992 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 3B992 Equipment Not Controlled by 3B002 for the Inspection or Testing of Electronic Components and Materials, and Specially Designed Components and Accessories Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 3A992.a. 28. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 3—Electronics, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)3D002 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 3D002 “Software” Specially Designed for the “Use” of Any of the Following (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* Also see 3D991. 29. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)4A001 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 4A001 Electronic Computers and Related Equipment, and “Electronic Assemblies” and Specially Designed Components Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Computers and related equipment in number; “electronic assemblies” and components in $ value 30. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)4A003 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 4A003 “Digital Computers”, “Electronic Assemblies”, and Related Equipment Therefor, as Follows, and Specially Designed Components Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Computers and related equipment in number; “electronic assemblies” and components in $ value 31. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)4A004 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 4A004 Computers, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled) and Specially Designed Related Equipment, “Electronic Assemblies” and Components Therefor. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Computers and related equipment in number; “electronic assemblies” and components in $ value 32. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 4—Computers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)4D003 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 4D003 Specific “Software”, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* See also 4D993. 33. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 5—Telecommunications and “Information Security”, Part 1 Telecommunications, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)5B001 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 5B001 Telecommunication Test, Inspection and Production Equipment, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Equipment in number; components and accessories in $ value 34. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 5—Telecommunications and “Information Security”, Part 2 “Information Security”, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)5E002 is amended by revising the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 5E002 “Technology” According to the General Technology Note for the “Development”, “Production” or “Use” of Equipment Controlled by 5A002 or 5B002 or “Software” Controlled by 5D002. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* N/A *Related Controls:* See also 4E001 for 4A001.b, 4E001 for 4D001 for 4A001.b, and 5E992. 35. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 6—Sensors and Lasers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)6A002 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 6A002 Optical Sensors. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number 36. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 6—Sensors and Lasers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)6A004 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 6A004 Optics. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number 37. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 6—Sensors and Lasers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)6A005 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 6A005 “Lasers” (Other Than Those Described in 0B001.g.5 or .h.6), Components and Optical Equipment, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number 38. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 6—Sensors and Lasers, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)6D003 is amended by revising the “License Exceptions” section, to read as follows: 6D003 Other “Software”, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). License Exceptions CIV: Yes, for 6D003.h.1 TSR: Yes, except for exports or reexports to destinations outside of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom of “software” for items controlled by 6D003.a. 39. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 8—Marine, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)8A001 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 8A001 Submersible Vehicles and Surface Vessels, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number 40. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 8—Marine, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)8D001 is amended by revising the “License Exceptions” section, to read as follows: 8D001 “Software” Specially Designed or Modified for the “Development”, “Production” or “Use” of Equipment or Materials Controlled by 8A (Except 8A018 or 8A992), 8B or 8C. License Exceptions CIV: N/A TSR: Yes, except for exports or reexports to destinations outside of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom of “software” specially designed for the “development” or “production” of equipment controlled by 8A001.b, 8A001.d, or 8A002.o.3.b. 41. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 8—Marine, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)8E001 is amended by revising the “License Exceptions” section, to read as follows: 8E001 “Technology” According to the General Technology Note for the “Development” or “Production” of Equipment or Materials Controlled by 8A (Except 8A018 or 8A992), 8B or 8C. License Exceptions CIV: N/A TSR: Yes, except for exports or reexports to destinations outside of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom of “technology” for items controlled by 8A001.b, 8A001.d or 8A002.o.3.b. 42. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 9—Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)9A004 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 9A004 Space Launch Vehicles and “Spacecraft”. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number 43. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 9—Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment, Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)9B009 is amended by revising the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: 9B009 Tooling Specially Designed for Producing Turbine Engine Powder Metallurgy Rotor Components Capable of Operating at Stress Levels of 60% of Ultimate Tensile Strength

(UTS)or More and Metal Temperatures of 873 K (600 °C) or More. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* Number Dated: April 11, 2008. Matthew S. Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8302 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Florfenicol AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a new animal drug application

(NADA)filed by Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp. The NADA provides for use of florfenicol injectable solution for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease. DATES: This rule is effective April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8341, e-mail: *cindy.burnsteel@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp., 556 Morris Ave., Summit, NJ 07901, filed NADA 141-265 for veterinary prescription use of NUFLOR GOLD (florfenicol) Injectable Solution by subcutaneous injection in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease. The NADA is approved as of March 21, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.955 to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 522.955 to read as follows: § 522.955 Florfenicol.

(a)*Specifications* . Each milliliter

(mL)of solution contains:

(1)300 milligrams

(mg)florfenicol in the inactive vehicles 2-pyrrolidone and triacetin.

(2)300 mg florfenicol in the inactive vehicle n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone.

(b)*Sponsor* . See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (d)(1)(i) and for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (d)(1)(ii).

(c)*Related tolerance* . See § 556.283 of this chapter.

(d)*Conditions of use* —(1) *Cattle* —(i) 300 mg/mL florfenicol in 2-pyrrolidone and triacetin (inactive vehicles).

(A)*Amount* . 40 mg/kilogram

(kg)body weight as a single subcutaneous injection.

(B)*Indications for use* . For treatment of bovine respiratory disease

(BRD)associated with *Mannheimia haemolytica* , *Pasteurella multocida* , and *Histophilus somni* in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle.

(C)*Limitations* . Do not slaughter within 44 days of last treatment. Do not use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Use may cause milk residues. A withdrawal period has not been established in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

(ii)300 mg/mL florfenicol in n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (inactive vehicle). (A)( *1* ) *Amount* . 20 mg/kg of body weight as an intramuscular injection. A second dose should be administered 48 hours later. Alternatively, 40 mg/kg of body weight as a single subcutaneous injection may be used. ( *2* ) *Indications for use* . For treatment of BRD associated with *Mannheimia (Pasteurella) haemolytica* , *P. multocida* , and *Haemophilus somnus* . For treatment of bovine interdigital phlegmon (foot rot, acute interdigital necrobacillosis, infectious pododermatitis) associated with *Fusobacterium necrophorum* and *Bacteroides melaninogenicus* . (B)( *1* ) *Amount* . 40 mg/kg of body weight as a single subcutaneous injection. ( *2* ) *Indications for use* . For control of respiratory disease in cattle at high risk of developing BRD associated with *Mannheimia (Pasteurella) haemolytica* , *P. multocida* , and *Haemophilus somnus* .

(C)*Limitations* . Do not slaughter within 28 days of last intramuscular treatment or within 38 days of subcutaneous treatment. Do not use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Use may cause milk residues. A withdrawal period has not been established in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

(2)[Reserved] Dated: April 4, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-8346 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Insulin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application

(NADA)filed by Intervet, Inc. The supplemental NADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of an injectable suspension of porcine insulin zinc for the reduction of hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-associated clinical signs in cats with diabetes mellitus. DATES: This rule is effective April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8337, e-mail: *melanie.berson@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet Lane, Millsboro, DE 19966, filed a supplement to NADA 141-236 providing for the veterinary prescription use of VETSULIN (porcine insulin zinc) Suspension for the reduction of hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-associated clinical signs in cats with diabetes mellitus. The application also provides for a lower initial dosage of insulin for dogs. The supplemental NADA is approved as of March 24, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1160 to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval. The three years of marketing exclusivity applies only to the indication for use in cats for which this supplement is approved. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. In § 522.1160, revise paragraphs

(a)and

(c)to read as follows: § 522.1160 Insulin.

(a)*Specifications* . Each milliliter of porcine insulin zinc suspension contains 40 international units

(IU)of insulin.

(c)*Conditions of use* —(1) *Dogs* —(i) *Amount* . Administer an initial once-daily dose of 0.5 IU per kilogram of body weight by subcutaneous injection concurrently with or right after a meal. Adjust this once-daily dose at appropriate intervals based on clinical signs, urinalysis results, and glucose curve values until adequate glycemic control has been attained. Twice-daily therapy should be initiated if the duration of insulin action is determined to be inadequate. If twice-daily treatment is initiated, the two doses should be 25 percent less than the once daily dose required to attain an acceptable nadir.

(ii)*Indications for use* . For the reduction of hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-associated clinical signs in dogs with diabetes mellitus.

(iii)*Limitations* . Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

(2)*Cats* —(i) *Amount* . Administer an initial dose of 1 to 2 IU by subcutaneous injection. Injections should be given twice daily at approximately 12-hour intervals. For cats fed twice daily, the injections should be concurrent with or right after a meal. For cats fed ad libitum, no change in feeding is needed. Adjust the dose at appropriate intervals based on clinical signs, urinalysis results, and glucose curve values until adequate glycemic control has been attained.

(ii)*Indications for use* . For the reduction of hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-associated clinical signs in cats with diabetes mellitus.

(iii)*Limitations* . Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Dated: April 4, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-8347 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0267] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL 8K Run AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the Cass Street Drawbridge, across the Illinois Waterway, Mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois. The deviation is necessary for the bridge to remain closed to navigation during the effective period for the Joliet City Center Partnership 8K Run. DATES: This temporary deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., May 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0267 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Robert A. Young Federal Building, Room 2.107F, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator,

(314)269-2378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Illinois Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation for the Cass Street Drawbridge, mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois across the Illinois Waterway as the drawbridge is along the route of the Joliet City Center Partnership 8K Run. The Cass Street Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.393(c), which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart, except that they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Saturday. In order to facilitate the annual event, the drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed to navigation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., May 10, 2008. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Illinois Waterway. The Cass Street Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 16.5 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: April 8, 2008. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-8472 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0139; FRL-8359-9] Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam and its metabolite, CGA-322704, in or on soybean, hulls and soybean, aspirated grain fractions. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective April 18, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 17, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0139. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Chao, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8735; e-mail address: *chao.julie@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0139 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before June 17, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0139, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL-8354-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F7301) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.565 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam, 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl- *N* -nitro-4 *H* -1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine, and its metabolite, CGA-322704, *N* -(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl) - *N* ′-methyl- *N* ′-nitro-guanidine, in or on soybean, hulls at 2.0 ppm and soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.08 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam, 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl- *N* -nitro-4 *H* -1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine, and its metabolite, CGA-322704, *N* -(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)- *N* ′-methyl - *N* ′-nitro-guanidine, in or on soybean, hulls at 2.0 ppm and soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.08 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by thiamethoxam as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of June 22, 2007, (72 FR 34401) (FRL-8133-6). B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure

(POD)is identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose

(BMD)approach is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UFs)are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiamethoxam used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34401) (FRL-8133-6). C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to thiamethoxam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing thiamethoxam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.565. EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiamethoxam in food as follows: For both acute and chronic exposure assessments EPA combined residues of clothianidin coming from thiamethoxam with residues of thiamethoxam per se. As discussed above, thiamethoxam's major metabolite is CGA-322704, which is also the registered active ingredient clothianidin. There is available information indicating that thiamethoxam and clothianidin have different toxicological effects in mammals and should be assessed separately, however, these exposure assessments for this action incorporated the total residue of thiamethoxam and clothianidin to estimate dietary exposure. This aggregation of thiamethoxam and clothianidin began with the initial assessment of thiamethoxam, prior to the requested registration of clothianidin as an active ingredient, and is being maintained in this action for historical purposes. In future assessments, as time and resources allow, the EPA will provide a rationale for the separate analysis of risks coming from thiamethoxam and clothianidin, and will conduct separate evaluations of exposure and risk for each chemical. The combining of these residues, as was done in these assessments, results in highly conservative estimates of dietary exposure and risk. i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed maximum residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin observed in the thiamethoxam field trials. It was also assumed that 100% of crops with registered or requested uses of thiamethoxam are treated. This assumption is highly conservative with respect to thiamethoxam use and removes the need to include residues of clothianidin coming from the use of that active ingredient. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed maximum residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin observed in the thiamethoxam field trials. It was also assumed that 100% of crops with registered or requested uses of thiamethoxam are treated. This assumption is highly conservative with respect to thiamethoxam use and removes the need to include residues of clothianidin coming from the use of that active ingredient. A complete listing of the inputs used in these assessments can be found in the document titled “Thiamethoxam Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary and Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments for FIFRA Section 3 Registration,” available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0523, *http://www.regulations.gov* . iii. *Cancer* . A quantitative cancer exposure assessment is not necessary because EPA concluded that thiamethoxam is “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on convincing evidence that a non-genotoxic mode of action for liver tumors was established in the mouse and that the carcinogenic effects are a result of a mode of action dependent on sufficient amounts of a hepatotoxic metabolite produced persistently. Therefore, the Agency concluded that thiamethoxam is not expected to pose a carcinogenic risk and an exposure assessment pertaining to cancer risk is not necessary. iv. *Anticipated residue information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. For the present action, EPA has used maximum residue values from field trials. These trials are designed to produce worst-case residue levels in foods, and likely overestimate residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin that may actually occur in or on foods. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . Thiamethoxam is expected to be persistent and mobile in terrestrial and aquatic environments. These fate properties suggest that thiamethoxam has a potential to move into surface water and shallow ground water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for thiamethoxam in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of thiamethoxam. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of thiamethoxam for acute exposures are estimated to be 12.26 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 7.94 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.29 ppb for surface water and 7.94 ppb for ground water. The registrant has conducted small-scale prospective ground water studies in several locations in the United States to investigate the mobility of thiamethoxam in a vulnerable hydrogeological setting. A review of those data shows that generally residues of thiamethoxam as well as CGA-322704 are below the limit of quantitation (0.05 ppb. When quantifiable residues are found, they are sporadic and at low levels. The maximum observed residue levels from any monitoring well were 1.0 ppb for thiamethoxam and 0.73 ppb for CGA-322704. These values are well below the modeled estimates summarized above, indicating that the modeled estimates are, in fact, protective of what actual exposures are likely to be. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic assessments the acute EDWC of 12.26 ppb (0.0123 ppm) was used as a worst-case estimate of exposure via drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Thiamethoxam is registered for use on turfgrass on golf courses, residential lawns, commercial grounds, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, landscapes, interiorscapes and sod farms. Thiamethoxam is applied by commercial applicators only. Therefore, exposures resulting from homeowner applications were not assessed. However, entering areas previously treated with thiamethoxam could lead to exposures for adults and children. As a result, risk assessments have been completed for postapplication scenarios. Short-term exposures (1 to 30 days of continuous exposure) may occur as a result of activities on treated turf. There are no use patterns for thiamethoxam that indicate intermediate-term (1 to 6 months of continuous exposure) or chronic non-dietary exposures are likely to occur. Dermal exposures were assessed for adults and children. Oral non-dietary ingestion exposures (i.e. soil ingestion, and hand-/object-to-mouth) were assessed for children as well. Since all postapplication scenarios occur outdoors the potential for inhalation exposure is negligible and therefore does not require an inhalation exposure assessment. For purposes of this assessment exposure from residential lawns is used to represent the worst case scenario for both dermal and oral postapplication exposure. Postapplication dermal exposure resulting from contact with treated turf was assessed using the EPA's Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure and a chemical-specific turf transfer residue study. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Thiamethoxam is a member of the neonicotinoid class of pesticides and produces, as a metabolite, another neonicotinoid, clothianidin. Structural similarities or common effects do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). Although clothianidin and thiamethoxam bind selectively to insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR), the specific binding site(s)/receptor(s) for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and the other neonicotinoids are unknown at this time. Additionally, the commonality of the binding activity itself is uncertain, as preliminary evidence suggests that clothianidin operates by direct competitive inhibition, while thiamethoxam is a non-competitive inhibitor. Furthermore, even if future research shows that neonicotinoids share a common binding activity to a specific site on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, there is not necessarily a relationship between this pesticidal action and a mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural variations between the insect and mammalian nAChRs produce quantitative differences in the binding affinity of the neonicotinoids towards these receptors, which, in turn, confers the notably greater selective toxicity of this class towards insects, including aphids and leafhoppers, compared to mammals. While the insecticidal action of the neonicotinoids is neurotoxic, the most sensitive regulatory endpoint for thiamethoxam is based on unrelated effects in mammals, including effects on the liver, kidney, testes, and hematopoietic system. Additionally, the most sensitive toxicological effect in mammals differs across the neonicotinoids (e.g., testicular tubular atrophy with thiamethoxam; mineralized particles in thyroid colloid with imidacloprid). Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that neonicotinoids share common mechanisms of toxicity, and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the neonicotinoids. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold

(10X)margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . In the developmental studies, there is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to *in utero* exposure to thiamethoxam. The developmental NOAELs are either higher than or equal to the maternal NOAELs. The toxicological effects in fetuses do not appear to be any more severe than those in the dams or does. In the rat developmental neurotoxicity study, there was no quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility. There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility for male pups in both two-generation reproductive studies. In one study, there are no toxicological effects in the dams whereas for the pups, reduced bodyweights are observed at the highest dose level, starting on day 14 of lactation. This contributes to an overall decrease in bodyweight gain during the entire lactation period. Additionally, reproductive effects in males appear in the F 1 generation in the form of increased incidence and severity of testicular tubular atrophy. These data are considered to be evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility for male pups (increased incidence of testicular tubular atrophy at 1.8 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) when compared to the parents (hyaline changes in renal tubules at 61 mg/kg/day; NOAEL is 1.8 mg/kg/day). In the more recent two-generation reproduction study, the most sensitive effect was sperm abnormalities at 3 mg/kg/day (the NOAEL is 1.2 mg/kg/day) in the F 1 males. This study also indicates increased susceptibility for the offspring for this effect. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility for male pups in both reproductive studies, NOAELs and LOAELs were established in these studies and the Agency selected the NOAEL for testicular effects in F 1 pups as the basis for risk assessment. The Agency has confidence that the NOAEL selected for risk assessment is protective of the most sensitive effect (testicular effects) for the most sensitive subgroup

(pups)observed in the toxicological database. Due to the finding of quantitative sensitivity in the reproduction studies, the EPA conducted a degree of concern analysis to assess the residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility. The Agency concluded that there is low concern for an increased susceptibility in the young given: i. There was no increased sensitivity (qualitative or quantitative) in the rat developmental, rabbit developmental and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies. ii. There was a clear NOAEL identified for the effects in pups in the rat reproduction studies where sensitivity was seen. iii. The Agency selected this NOAEL as the basis for risk assessment. 3. *Conclusion* . The final rule published in the **Federal Register** of January 5, 2006 ( *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2005/January/Day-05/p089.htm* ) reported that the EPA had determined that the 10X special safety factor to protect infants and children should be retained for thiamethoxam based on the following factors: Effects on endocrine organs observed across species; the significant decrease in alanine amino transferase levels in the companion animal studies and in the dog studies; the mode of action of this chemical in insects (interferes with the nicotinic acetyl choline receptors of the insect's nervous system); the transient clinical signs of neurotoxicity in several studies across species; and the suggestive evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the rat reproduction study. Since that determination, EPA has received and reviewed a Developmental Neurotoxicity

(DNT)study in rats and an additional Reproduction study in rats. Taking the results of this study into account, EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for thiamethoxam is complete, including acceptable/guideline developmental toxicity, 2-generation reproduction, and developmental neurotoxicity studies designed to detect adverse effects on the developing organism, which could result from the mechanism that may have produced the decreased alanine amino transferase levels. ii. For the reasons discussed above, there is low concern for an increased susceptibility in the young. iii. Although there is evidence of neurotoxicity after acute exposure to thiamethoxam at doses of 500 mg/kg/day including drooped palpebral closure, decrease in rectal temperature and locomotor activity and increase in forelimb grip strength, no evidence of neuropathology was observed. These effects occurred at doses at least fourteenfold and 416-fold higher than the doses used for the acute, and chronic risk assessments, respectively; thus, there is low concern for these effects since it is expected that the doses used for regulatory purposes would be protective of the effects noted at much higher doses. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on assumption that the maximum residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin observed in the thiamethoxam field trials were remaining on crops. Although there is available information indicating that thiamethoxam and clothianidin have different toxicological effects in mammals and should be assessed separately, the residues of each have been combined in these assessments to ensure that the estimated exposures of thiamethoxam do not underestimate actual potential thiamethoxam exposures. An assumption of 100% crop treated was made for all foods evaluated in the assessments. For both the acute and chronic assessments the acute EEC of 12.26 ppb (0.0123 ppm) was used as a worst-case estimate of exposure via drinking water. Compared to the results from small-scale prospective ground water studies where the maximum observed residue levels from any monitoring well were 1.0 ppb for thiamethoxam and 0.73 ppb for CGA-322704, the modeled estimates are protective of what actual exposures are likely to be. Similarly conservative Residential SOPs as well as a chemical-specific turf transfer residue

(TTR)study were used to assess post-application exposure to children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiamethoxam. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to thiamethoxam will occupy 3% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to thiamethoxam from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group with greatest exposure. Based on the use patterns proposed, chronic residential exposure to residues of thiamethoxam is not expected. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Thiamethoxam is currently registered for use that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for thiamethoxam. The level of concern for the margin of exposure

(MOE)is 100 for all residential uses (i.e., MOEs less than 100 indicate potential risks of concern). Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 730 through 2,800 for all exposure scenarios (dermal exposures, and oral non-dietary ingestion) for infants, children and adults. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). There are no use patterns for thiamethoxam that indicate intermediate-term (1 to 6 months of continuous exposure) exposures are likely to occur. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The Agency has classified thiamethoxam as not likely to be a human carcinogen based on convincing evidence that a non-genotoxic mode of action for liver tumors was established in the mouse and that the carcinogenic effects are a result of a mode of action dependent on sufficient amounts of a hepatotoxic metabolite produced persistently. Thiamethoxam is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) or mass spectrometry (MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: residuemethods@epa.gov. B. International Residue Limits There are no CODEX or Mexican maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for thiamethoxam. A number of Canadian MRLs exist for this chemical and are in accord with U.S. tolerances. The new/revised tolerances established by this rule have been derived using the NAFTA Tolerance Harmonization Spreadsheet. V. Conclusion Based upon review of the supporting data, EPA has determined that tolerance levels for the following crops should be set as follows: soybean, hulls at 2.0 ppm; and soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.08 ppm. Therefore, tolerances are established for the combined residues of thiamethoxam, 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl- *N* -nitro-4 *H* -1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine, and its metabolite, CGA-322704, *N* -(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)- *N* ′-methyl- *N′* -nitro-guanidine, in or on soybean, hulls at 2.0 ppm and soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.08 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 9, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.565 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.565 Thiamethoxam; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Soybean, aspirated grain fractions 0.08 Soybean, hulls 2.0 * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-8398 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety

(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p.376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Arizona: Pima (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Town of Marana (07-09-1759P) September 6, 2007; September 13, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Ed Honea, Mayor, Town of Marana, Marana Municipal Complex, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 December 13, 2007 040118 Pima (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Unincorporated areas of Pima County (07-09-1759P) September 6, 2007; September 13, 2007; *The Daily Territorial* The Honorable Richard Elias, Chairman, Pima County Board of Supervisors, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 December 13, 2007 040073 California: Riverside (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) City of Perris (07-09-0955P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Daryl R. Busch, Mayor, City of Perris, 101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92570 February 14, 2008 060258 Riverside (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Riverside County (07-09-0955P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable John F. Tavaglione, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Riverside County, 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 February 14, 2008 060245 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7750) City of Carlsbad (07-09-1622P) October 4, 2007; October 11, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable Claude A. Lewis, Mayor, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 September 24, 2007 060285 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7750) City of San Marcos (07-09-1622P) October 4, 2007; October 11, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable James Desmond, Mayor, City of San Marcos, One Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 September 24, 2007 060296 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7750) Unincorporated areas of San Diego County (07-09-1622P) October 4, 2007; October 11, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable Ron Roberts, Chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101 September 24, 2007 060284 San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of San Diego County (07-09-1709P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *San Diego Daily Transcript* The Honorable Ron Roberts, Chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101 January 17, 2008 060284 Shasta (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Anderson (07-09-1859P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Tri-Valley Post* The Honorable Keith Webster, Mayor, City of Anderson, 1887 Howard Street, Anderson, CA 96007 January 22, 2008 060359 Stanislaus (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County (08-09-0041X) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Modesto Bee* The Honorable William O'Brien, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 6500, Modesto, CA 95354 October 19, 2007 060384 Ventura (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Simi Valley (07-09-1419P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Ventura County Star* The Honorable Paul Miller, Mayor, City of Simi Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 January 24, 2008 060421 Colorado: El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Colorado Springs (07-08-0414P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 January 16, 2008 080060 El Paso (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (07-08-0414P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Dennis Hisey, Chairman, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2208 January 16, 2008 080059 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) City of Lakewood (07-08-0666P) November 15, 2007; November 22, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Steve Burkholder, Mayor, City of Lakewood, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80226 February 21, 2008 085075 Connecticut: New Haven (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) Town of Branford (07-01-0657P) October 4, 2007; October 11, 2007; *New Haven Register* The Honorable Cheryl Morris, First Selectwoman, Town of Branford, 1019 Main Street, Branford, CT 06405 September 19, 2007 090073 Florida: Duval (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) City of Jacksonville (07-04-2369P) November 12, 2007; November 19, 2007; *Jacksonville Daily Record* The Honorable John Peyton, Mayor, City of Jacksonville, City Hall at Saint James, Fourth Floor, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202 February 19, 2008 120077 Polk (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) City of Davenport (07-04-5360P) November 7, 2007; November 14, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Peter Rust, Mayor, City of Davenport, P.O. Box 125, Davenport, FL 33836-0125 October 29, 2007 120410 Sarasota (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Sarasota County (07-04-3837P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Sarasota Herald-Tribune* The Honorable Nora Patterson, Chairman, Sarasota County Board of Commissioners, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, FL 34236 January 17, 2008 125144 St. Johns (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of St. Johns County (07-04-5711P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The St. Augustine Record* The Honorable Ben Rich, Chairman, Saint Johns County Board of Commissioners, 4020 Lewis Speedway, Saint Augustine, FL 32084 September 28, 2007 125147 Illinois: St. Clair (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Belleville (06-05-C230P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Mark W. Eckert, Mayor, City of Belleville, 101 South Illinois Street, Belleville, IL 62220 January 24, 2008 170618 St. Clair (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of O'Fallon (07-05-4876P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Gary L. Graham, Mayor, City of O'Fallon, 255 South Lincoln Avenue, O'Fallon, IL 62269 September 28, 2007 170633 St. Clair (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of St. Clair County (06-05-C230P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Mark Kern, Chairman, St. Clair County Board of Supervisors, County Courthouse, 10 Public Square, Belleville, IL 62220-1623 January 24, 2008 170616 Will (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Village of Mokena (07-05-5016P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The Herald News* The Honorable Joseph W. Werner, Village President, Village of Mokena, 11004 Carpenter Street, Mokena, IL 60448 September 21, 2007 170705 Maine: Lincoln (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) Town of Bristol (07-01-0799P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Lincoln County News* The Honorable Chad Hanna, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, Town of Bristol, P.O. Box 147, Bristol, ME 04539 October 23, 2007 230215 Maryland: Cecil (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Cecil County (06-03-B926P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Cecil Whig* The Honorable William C. Manlove, President, Cecil County Board of Commissioners, 107 North Street, Elkton, MD 21921 January 24, 2008 240019 Massachusetts: Berkshire (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Pittsfield (07-01-0973P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Berkshire Eagle* The Honorable James M. Ruberto, Mayor, City of Pittsfield, 70 Allen Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201 January 24, 2008 250037 Bristol (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) Town of Easton (07-01-0531P) November 9, 2007; November 16, 2007; *The Easton Journal* The Honorable Colleen A. Corona, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, Town of Easton, 136 Elm Street, North Easton, MA 02356 February 15, 2008 250053 Suffolk (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Revere (07-01-0489P) October 10, 2007; October 17, 2007; *The Revere Journal* The Honorable Thomas G. Ambrosino, Mayor, City of Revere, City Hall, 281 Broadway, Revere, MA 02151 September 20, 2007 250288 Michigan: Oakland (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Township of West Bloomfield (07-05-3615P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Spinal Column Newsweekly* The Honorable David Flaisher, Supervisor, Township of West Bloomfield, P.O. Box 250130, West Bloomfield, MI 48325-0130 October 2, 2007 260182 Minnesota: Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of St. Cloud (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *St. Cloud Times* The Honorable Dave Kleis, Mayor, City of Saint Cloud, 400 Second Street South, Saint Cloud, MN 56301 January 23, 2008 270456 Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Sauk Rapids (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sauk Rapids Herald* The Honorable Mark Campbell, Mayor, City of Sauk Rapids, 914 Arbor Way, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 January 23, 2008 270023 Benton (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Benton County (06-05-B082P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sauk Rapids Herald* The Honorable Dick Soyka, Chairman of Benton County, 531 Dewey Street, P.O. Box 129, Foley, MN 56329 January 23, 2008 270019 Hennepin (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Brooklyn Park (07-05-2478P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Brooklyn Park Sun* The Honorable Steve Lampi, Mayor, City of Brooklyn Park, 1209 88th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55424 October 29, 2007 270152 Hennepin (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Edina (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Edina Sun-Current* The Honorable James Hovland, Mayor, City of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424 September 28, 2007 270160 Hennepin (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Hopkins (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Hopkins Sun-Sailor* The Honorable Eugene Maxwell, Mayor, City of Hopkins, 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 September 28, 2007 270166 Hennepin (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of St. Louis Park (07-05-4704P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor* The Honorable Jeff Jacobs, Mayor, City of St. Louis Park, 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 300, Edina, MN 55437-2302 September 28, 2007 270184 Mississippi: DeSoto (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Southaven (07-04-4518P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *DeSoto Times Today* The Honorable Charles G. Davis, Mayor, City of Southaven, 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671 October 9, 2007 280331 Missouri: Greene (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Greene County (07-07-1448P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Springfield News-Leader* The Honorable David Coonrod, Presiding Commissioner, Greene County, 933 North Robberson, Springfield, MO 65802 February 14, 2008 290782 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Chesterfield (06-07-B578P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017-0670 January 17, 2008 290896 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Chesterfield (07-07-1386P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017-0760 September 27, 2007 290896 St. Louis (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of St. Louis County (06-07-B578P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The St. Louis Daily Record* The Honorable Charlie A. Dooley, County Executive, St. Louis County, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105 January 17, 2008 290327 Montana: Richland (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Sidney (07-08-0006P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sidney Herald* The Honorable Brett Smelser, Mayor, City of Sidney, 115 Second Street Southeast, Sidney, MT 59270 January 23, 2008 300065 Richland (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Richland County (07-08-0006P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Sidney Herald* The Honorable Don Steppler, Chairman, Richland County Board of Commissioners, 201 West Main Street, Sidney, MT 59270 January 23, 2008 300165 Nebraska: Hall (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Grand Island (07-07-0780P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Grand Island Independent* The Honorable Margaret Hornady, Mayor, City of Grand Island, 100 East First Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 September 28, 2007 310103 Lancaster (FEMA Docket No: B-7754) City of Hickman (07-07-1852P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *Lincoln Journal Star* The Honorable Jim Hrouda, Mayor, City of Hickman, P.O. Box 127, Hickman, NE 68372 November 5, 2007 310136 Lancaster (FEMA Docket No: B-7761) City of Lincoln (07-07-0628P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Lincoln Journal Star* The Honorable Chris Beutler, Mayor, City of Lincoln, 555 South 10th Street, Second Floor, Room 208, Lincoln, NE 68508 October 24, 2007 315273 New Jersey: Passaic (FEMA Docket No. B-7738) Township of Little Falls (07-02-1082X) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *The Record* The Honorable Eugene Kulick, Mayor, Township of Little Falls, Township Government Offices, 225 Main Street, Little Falls, NJ 07424 November 15, 2007 340401 Passaic (FEMA Docket No. B-7738) Borough of West Paterson (07-02-1082X) August 9, 2007; August 16, 2007; *The Record* The Honorable Pat Lapore, Mayor, Borough of West Paterson, Municipal Building, Five Brophy Lane, West Paterson, NJ 07424 November 15, 2007 340412 New Mexico: Sandoval (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Unincorporated areas of Sandoval County (07-06-1048P) September 20, 2007; September 27, 2007; *The Santa Fe New Mexican* Ms. Debbie Hayes, County Manager, Sandoval County, P.O. Box 40, Bernalillo, NM 87004 August 27, 2007 350055 North Carolina: Alamance (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) City of Burlington (06-04-BY00P) May 15, 2007; May 22, 2007; *The Times-News* The Honorable Stephen M. Ross, Mayor of the City of Burlington, P.O. Box 1358, 425 South Lexington Avenue, Burlington, North Carolina 27215 August 20, 2007 370002 Dare (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Town of Nags Head (07-04-4138P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *The Coastland Times* Mr. Charles L. Cameron, Manager, Town of Nags Head, P.O. Box 99, 5401 South Croatan Highway, Nags Head, North Carolina 27959 June 13, 2007 375356 Dare (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Unincorporated areas of Dare County (07-04-4138P) June 21, 2007; June 28, 2007; *The Coastland Times* Mr. Terry Wheeler, Manager, Dare County, P.O. Drawer 1000, 211 Budleigh Street, Manteo, North Carolina 27954 June 13, 2007 375348 Durham (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) City of Durham (07-04-2980P) August 14, 2007; August 21, 2007; *The Herald-Sun* The Honorable William V. Bell, Mayor of the City of Durham, Office of the Mayor, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, North Carolina 27701 August 7, 2007 370086 Durham (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Unincorporated areas of Durham County (07-04-2980P) August 14, 2007; August 21, 2007; *The Herald-Sun* Mr. Michael M. Ruffin, Manager, Durham County, 200 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Old Courthouse, Durham, North Carolina 27701 August 7, 2007 370085 Mecklenburg (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Town of Huntersville (07-04-0542P) October 15, 2007; October 22, 2007; *The Charlotte Observer* The Honorable Kim Phillips, Mayor, Town of Huntersville, P.O. Box 667, Huntersville, NC 28078 January 21, 2008 370478 Orange (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Unincorporated areas of Orange County (06-04-C141P) July 31, 2007; August 7, 2007; *Chapel Hill Herald* Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 November 5, 2007 370342 Union (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Town of Indian Trail (06-04-BX22P) May 15, 2007; May 22, 2007; *The Enquirer Journal* The Honorable Sandy Moore, Mayor of the Town of Indian Trail, P.O. Box 2430, Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079 August 21, 2007 370235 Union (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Unincorporated areas of Union County (06-04-BX22P) May 15, 2007; May 22, 2007; *The Enquirer Journal* Mr. Mike Shalati, Manager, Union County, 500 North Main Street, Room 925, Monroe, North Carolina 28112 August 21, 2007 370234 Wake (FEMA Docket No. B-7745) Town of Wake Forest (07-04-0615P) August 2, 2007; August 9, 2007; *The Wake Weekly* The Honorable Vivian A. Jones, Mayor of the Town of Wake Forest, 401 Elm Avenue, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 November 7, 2007 370244 Ohio: Lake (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Village of Perry (07-05-0261P) October 25, 2007; November 1, 2007; *The News-Herald* The Honorable Lee Lydic, Mayor, Village of Perry, P.O. Box 100, Perry, OH 44081 October 1, 2007 390320 Oklahoma: Cleveland (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Moore (07-06-1082P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Norman Transcript* The Honorable Glenn Lewis, Mayor, City of Moore, 301 North Broadway, Moore, OK 73160 February 14, 2008 400044 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Tulsa (07-06-2371P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Kathy Taylor, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, OK 74103 January 24, 2008 405381 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Tulsa County (07-06-2371P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Randi Miller, Chair, Tulsa County Board of Supervisors, 500 South Denver Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74103 January 24, 2008 400462 Pennsylvania: Bucks (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Township of Wrightstown (07-03-1222P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Bucks County Courier Times* The Honorable Chester Pogonowski, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Wrightstown Township, 2203 Second Street Pike, Wrightstown, PA 18940 September 24, 2007 421045 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Township of Lower Moreland (07-03-0583P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Globe* The Honorable Kurt G. Mayer, President, Lower Moreland Township Commissioners, 640 Red Lion Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 October 24, 2007 420702 South Carolina: Horry (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Conway (07-04-4404P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Gregory K. Martin, Mayor, City of Conway, P.O. Box 1075, Conway, SC 29528 January 24, 2008 415106 Horry (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Horry County (07-04-4404P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Liz Gilland, Council Chairman, Horry County, 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 January 24, 2008 415104 Horry (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Horry County (07-04-5516P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Horry Independent* The Honorable Liz Gilland, Council Chairman, Horry County, 1511 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526 January 24, 2008 415104 Lexington (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Town of Springdale (07-04-5295P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Lexington County Chronicle* The Honorable Pat G. Smith, Mayor, Town of Springdale, 2915 Platt Springs Road, Springdale, SC 29170 October 31, 2007 450138 Texas: Cameron (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Village of Laguna Vista (08-06-0039P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Brownsville Herald* The Honorable David Privett, Mayor, Village of Laguna Vista, 122 Fernandez Street, Laguna Vista, TX 78578 October 29, 2007 485483 Cameron (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Cameron County (08-06-0039P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Brownsville Herald* The Honorable Carlos H. Cascos, CPA, Cameron County Judge, 1100 East Monroe Street, Second Floor, Brownsville, TX 78520 October 29, 2007 480101 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Allen (07-06-1312P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *The Allen American* The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 January 17, 2008 480131 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of McKinney (07-06-1687P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *McKinney Courier-Gazette* The Honorable Bill Whitfield, Mayor, City of McKinney, 222 North Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX 75069 February 14, 2008 480135 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Murphy (07-06-0453P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Wylie News* The Honorable Bret Baldwin, Mayor, City of Murphy, 206 North Murphy Road, Murphy, TX 75094 January 23, 2008 480137 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Plano (07-06-0629P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 October 31, 2007 480140 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Plano (07-06-0947P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 January 17, 2008 480140 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Plano (07-06-1312P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Plano Star Courier* The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75074 January 17, 2008 480140 Collin (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Collin County (07-06-1687P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *McKinney Courier-Gazette* The Honorable Keith Self, Collin County Judge, Collin County Government Center, 210 South McDonald Street, Suite 626, McKinney, TX 75069 February 14, 2008 480130 Harris (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Harris County (07-06-1886P) November 15, 2007; November 22, 2007; *Houston Chronicle* The Honorable Ed Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 February 20, 2008 480287 Hays (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Buda (07-06-1313P) October 17, 2007; October 24, 2007; *Hays Free Press* The Honorable Bobby Lane, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Buda, 217 Arikara Street, Buda, TX 78610 January 23, 2008 481640 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (07-06-1001P) September 12, 2007; September 19, 2007; *The Montgomery County News* The Honorable Alan B. Sadler, County Judge, Montgomery County, 301 North Thompson, Suite 210, Conroe, TX 77301 October 1, 2007 480483 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Arlington (07-06-1545P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Arlington Star-Telegram* The Honorable Robert Cluck, Mayor, City of Arlington, 101 West Abram Street, Arlington, TX 76010 September 28, 2007 485454 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Benbrook (07-06-1254P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Jerry Dittrich, Mayor, City of Benbrook, 911 Winscott Road, Benbrook, TX 76126 February 14, 2008 480586 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) City of Fort Worth (07-06-0930P) September 20, 2007; September 27, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 December 27, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Fort Worth (07-06-1254P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 February 14, 2008 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Fort Worth (07-06-1675P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 February 14, 2008 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) City of Fort Worth (07-06-1902P) September 20, 2007; September 27, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Mike J. Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 August 31, 2007 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Fort Worth (07-06-2141P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 February 14, 2008 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of Fort Worth (07-06-2202P) October 11, 2007; October 18, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Michael Moncrief, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 January 17, 2008 480596 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Tarrant County (07-06-1254P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Glen Whitley, Tarrant County Judge, 100 East Weatherford, Suite 501, Fort Worth, TX 76196 February 14, 2008 480582 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Tarrant County (07-06-2141P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable Glen Whitley, Tarrant County Judge, 100 East Weatherford Street, Suite 501, Fort Worth, TX 76196 February 14, 2008 480582 Travis (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Travis County (07-06-0940P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Samuel T. Biscoe, Travis County Judge, 314 West 11th Street, Suite 520, Austin, TX 78701 January 24, 2008 481026 Williamson (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) City of Round Rock (07-06-2615P) September 18, 2007; September 25, 2007; *Round Rock Leader* The Honorable Nyle Maxwell, Mayor, City of Round Rock, 221 East Main Street, Round Rock, TX 78664 December 26, 2007 481048 Williamson (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Unincorporated areas of Williamson County (07-06-2615P) September 18, 2007; September 25, 2007; *Round Rock Leader* The Honorable Dan A. Gattis, Williamson County Judge, 301 Southeast Inner Loop, Suite 109, Georgetown, TX 78626 December 26, 2007 481079 Virginia: Fauquier (FEMA Docket No. B-7750) Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (07-03-1036P) September 12, 2007; September 19, 2007; *Fauquier Times Democrat* Mr. Harry Atherton, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, Ten Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 February 7, 2008 510055 Independent City (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) City of Winchester (07-03-1291P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Winchester Star* The Honorable Elizabeth Minor, Mayor, City of Winchester, 422 National Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601 January 24, 2008 510173 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (07-03-1077P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *Roanoke Times* The Honorable Steve L. Spradlin, Chair, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, 1553 Oilwell Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060 February 14, 2008 510099 Wise (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) Town of Wise (07-03-1197P) November 8, 2007; November 15, 2007; *The Coalfield Progress* The Honorable Clifton Carson, Mayor, Town of Wise, P.O. Box 1100, Wise, VA 24293 February 14, 2008 510179 West Virginia: Jefferson (FEMA Docket No. B-7754) Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (07-03-0242P) October 18, 2007; October 25, 2007; *The Journal* The Honorable Frances Morgan, President, Jefferson County Commission, Post Office Box 250, Charles Town, WV 25414 January 24, 2008 540065 Wisconsin: Milwaukee (FEMA Docket No. B-7761) City of West Allis (07-05-4106P) November 1, 2007; November 8, 2007; *Milwaukee Journal Sentinel* The Honorable Jeannette Bell, Mayor, City of West Allis, City Hall, Room 123, 7525 West Greenfield Avenue, West Allis, WI 53214 October 18, 2007 550285 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: March 31, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-8332 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 45 CFR Part 1160 RIN 3134-AA01 Technical Amendments To Reflect the New Authorization for a Domestic Indemnity Program AGENCY: Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities is adopting as a final rule, without change, the amendments which were published in the **Federal Register** as a proposed rule on March 4, 2008. The amendments reflect Congress's authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007), and provide examples to guide applicants considering applying for indemnification of exhibitions with domestic or foreign-owned objects. DATES: This rule is effective April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on Arts and the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506. (Phone:

(202)606-8322, facsimile

(202)606-8600, or e-mail to *gencounsel@neh.gov* .) Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the TDD terminal on

(202)606-8282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on Domestic Indemnity Program Technical Amendments In 1975, the United States Congress enacted the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, 20 U.S.C. 971-977, as amended, which established the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program administered by the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (Federal Council). Under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program, the United States Government guarantees to pay claims for loss or damage, subject to certain limitations, arising from exhibitions of foreign and domestic-owned objects determined by the Federal Council to be of educational, cultural, historical or scientific value. The Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program is administered by the Museum Program at the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council, per “Indemnities Under the Arts and Artifacts Act” regulations (hereinafter “the Regulations”), which are set forth at 45 CFR part 1160. Since 1975, the Regulations have been promulgated and amended by the Federal Council pursuant to the express and implied rulemaking authorities granted by Congress to make and amend rules needed for the effective administration of the Indemnity Program. On December 26, 2007, through section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161, the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act was amended in part to expand coverage of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity program to up to $5,000,000,000 at any one time for domestic exhibitions. (20 U.S.C. 974(b).) On March 4, 2008, a proposed rule was published by the Federal Council in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 11577) and public comment was solicited on technical amendments to the Regulations to reflect the authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program. II. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The Federal Council's March 4, 2008 proposed rule in the **Federal Register** at 73 FR 11577 provided a 30-day public comment period which ended on April 3, 2008. No comments were submitted in response to the proposed rulemaking. III. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) Under Executive Order 12866, the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one 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 final rule makes technical amendments to reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007)). As such, it does not impose a compliance burden on the economy generally or on any person or entity. Accordingly, this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” from an economic standpoint, and it does not otherwise create any inconsistencies or budgetary impacts to any other agency or Federal Program. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because this final rule makes certain technical amendments, the Federal Council has determined in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) review that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, since it makes only technical amendments to reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007). An OMB form 83-1 is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect State, local, and tribal governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more as adjusted for inflation in any one year. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This final rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the final rule does not have significant takings implications. No rights, property or compensation has been, or will be, taken. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not have federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Federal Council has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Federal Council has evaluated this final rule and determined that it has no potential negative effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. National Environmental Policy Act This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1160 Administrative practice and procedure, Art, Indemnity payments, Museums, Nonprofit organizations. Dated: April 11, 2008. Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007), the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities amends 45 CFR Part 1160 as follows: PART 1160—INDEMNITIES UNDER THE ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT 1. The authority citation for 45 CFR Part 1160 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 971-977. 2. Revise § 1160.4 to read as follows: § 1160.4 Eligibility for international exhibitions. An indemnity agreement for an international exhibition made under these regulations shall cover:

(a)Eligible items from outside the United States while on exhibition in the United States;

(b)Eligible items from the United States while on exhibition outside this country, preferably when they are part of an exchange of exhibitions; and

(c)Eligible items from the United States while on exhibition in the United States, in connection with other eligible items from outside the United States which are integral to the exhibition as a whole. (d)(1) *Example.* An American art museum is organizing a retrospective exhibition which will include more than 150 works of art by Impressionist painter Auguste Renoir. Museums in Paris and London have agreed to lend 125 works of art, covering every aspect of his career, many of which have not been seen together since the artist's death in 1919. The organizer is planning to include 25 masterpieces by Renoir from American public and private collections. The show will open in Chicago and travel to San Francisco and Washington.

(2)*Discussion.* This example is a common application for coverage of both foreign- and domestic-owned objects in an international exhibition. The foreign-owned objects are eligible for indemnity coverage under paragraph

(a)of this section, and the domestic-owned objects may be eligible for indemnity coverage under paragraph

(c)of this section if the foreign-owned objects are integral to the purposes of the exhibition as a whole. In reviewing this application, the Federal Council would evaluate the exhibition as a whole and determine whether the loans of 125 foreign-owned objects are integral to the educational, cultural, historical, or scientific significance of the exhibition on Renoir. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. §§ 1160.5 through 1160.12 [Redesignated as §§ 1160.6 through 1160.13] 3. Sections 1160.5 through 1160.12 are redesignated as §§ 1160.6 through 1160.13. 4. A new § 1160.5 is added to read as follows: § 1160.5 Eligibility for domestic exhibitions. An indemnity agreement for a domestic exhibition made under these regulations shall cover eligible items from the United States while on Exhibition in the United States. (a)(1) *Example 1.* An American museum is undergoing renovation and will be closed to the public for one year. During that time, masterpieces from the collection will go on tour to three other museums in the United States. Many of these works have never been lent for travel, and this will be a unique and the last opportunity for museum visitors in other parts of the country to see them exhibited together. Once the new building opens, they will be permanently installed and dispersed throughout the museum's galleries.

(2)*Discussion.*

(i)This is a straightforward example of a domestic exhibition which would be eligible for consideration for indemnity coverage. Under the previous regulations, eligibility was limited to:

(A)Exhibitions in the United States of entirely foreign-owned objects;

(B)Exhibitions outside of the United States of domestic-owned objects; or

(C)Exhibitions in the United States of both foreign- and domestic-owned objects, with the foreign-owned objects having integral importance to the exhibition.

(ii)In this example, the Federal Council will consider the educational, cultural, historical, or scientific significance of the proposed domestic exhibition of the domestic-owned objects. It would not be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. (b)(1) *Example 2.* An American museum is organizing an exhibition of works by 20th century American artists, which will travel to one other U.S. museum. There are more than 100 objects in the exhibition. The majority of the paintings, drawings and sculpture, valued at more than $500,000,000, are from galleries, museums and private collections in the United States. The organizing curator has selected ten works of art, mostly drawings and preparatory sketches relating to paintings in the exhibition, valued at less than $5,000,000, which will be borrowed from foreign lenders.

(2)*Discussion.*

(i)This example raises the question of whether this applicant should submit an application for indemnity coverage for a domestic exhibition or an international exhibition. If the applicant submitted an application for an international exhibition requesting coverage for only the foreign-owned objects eligible under Section 1160.4(a), the Federal Council would evaluate whether the ten foreign-owned objects further the exhibition's educational, cultural, historical, or scientific purposes. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. In this case, the applicant would have to insure the loans of the domestic-owned objects by other means.

(ii)In the case of an application for an international exhibition requesting coverage for both domestic-owned and foreign-owned objects eligible under section 1160.4(a) and (c), the Federal Council would evaluate the exhibition as a whole to determine if the ten foreign-owned objects are integral to achieving the exhibition's educational, cultural, historical, or scientific purposes. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest.

(iii)If the applicant submitted an application for a domestic exhibition, however, only the loans of domestic-owned objects, the highest valued part of the exhibition, would be eligible for coverage. The Federal Council would consider if the U.S. loans were of educational, cultural or historic interest. It would not be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. In this case, the applicant would have to insure the loans of the foreign-owned objects by other means. § 1160.6 [Amended] 5. Amend paragraph (j)(2) of newly redesignated § 1160.6 by removing “Director of the United States Information Agency that the exhibition” and adding in its place “Secretary of State or his designee that the international exhibition with eligible items under § 1160.4”. § 1160.7 [Amended] 6. Amend newly redesignated § 1160.7 by removing “the application will be submitted to the Director of the United States Information Agency” and adding in its place “applications for international exhibitions with eligible items under § 1160.4 will be submitted to the Secretary of State or his designee.” [FR Doc. E8-8224 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 060824226-6322-02] RIN 0648-AW58 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures; request for comments. SUMMARY: This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the commercial and recreational Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. These actions, which are authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), are intended to allow fisheries to access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks. DATES: Effective 0001 hours (local time) May 1, 2008. Comments on this final rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW58 by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Gretchen Arentzen • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Gretchen Arentzen. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Arentzen (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736 and e-mail *gretchen.arentzen@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This final rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Website at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at *http://www.pcouncil.org/* . Background The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS. A proposed rule to implement the 2007-2008 specifications and management measures for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and Amendment 16-4 of the FMP was published on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57764). The final rule to implement the 2007-2008 specifications and management measures for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery was published on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78638). These specifications and management measures were codified in the CFR (50 CFR part 660, subpart G). The final rule was subsequently amended on: March 20, 2007 (71 FR 13043); April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19390); July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36617); August 3, 2007 (72 FR 43193); September 18, 2007 (72 FR 53165); October 4, 2007 (72 FR 56664); December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68097); and December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71583). Changes to current groundfish management measures implemented by this action were recommended by the Council, in consultation with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, at its March 10-14, 2008, meeting in Sacramento, California. The Council recommended adjustments to current groundfish management measures to respond to updated fishery information and other inseason management needs. Limited Entry Non-Whiting Trawl Fishery Management Measures At its March 2008 meeting, the Council received new data and analyses on the catch of groundfish in the limited entry trawl fishery. The Council's recommendations for revising 2008 trawl fishery management measures focused on modifying the RCA boundary lines and trip limits to move vessels away from areas where canary rockfish most commonly co-occur with more abundant groundfish stocks, and considered the resulting effects of the movement of the fleet on darkblotched rockfish. According to the most recently available West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) data, released in late January, 2008, bycatch rates for canary rockfish using selective flatfish trawl gear north of 40°10.00' N. lat. were much higher in 2006 than had been anticipated. By applying these new bycatch rates to landings of target species in the existing fishery bycatch model, NMFS concluded that the 2006 canary rockfish OY had been exceeded by approximately 10 mt. While estimated 2007 total catch of canary rockfish has yet to be determined, higher than anticipated bycatch rates in the north by selective flatfish trawls would be expected to continue in 2008. Based on 2006 WCGOP data indicating higher canary rockfish bycatch rates using selective flatfish trawls north of 40°10.00' N. lat., NMFS believes that the canary rockfish OY could be exceeded in 2008 under status quo regulations. The 2008 regulatory measures were developed assuming a canary rockfish bycatch rate that now has been determined to be too low, which results in an underestimate in the predicted impacts to canary rockfish. In order to keep catch levels within the canary rockfish OY, inseason adjustments are necessary to constrain incidental canary rockfish catch in the limited entry non-whiting trawl fishery. The Council considered several options available to reduce impacts on canary rockfish in the non-whiting limited entry trawl fishery north of 40°10.00' N. lat. closer to harvest levels initially projected for the fisheries during development of the 2008 management measures:

(1)the modification of trawl cumulative limits; and

(2)modifications of the trawl RCA boundaries using some of the management area boundaries and commonly used geographic coordinates, defined at 50 CFR 660.302 under “North-South management area”, to provide more area-specific management measures on portions of the coast with differential canary rockfish bycatch rates. Use of management area boundaries and commonly used geographic coordinates for more area-specific management measures were first implemented inseason on April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19390). For 2009-2010, the Council has recommended the development of other tools, such as more refined area closures, similar to the yelloweye rockfish RCAs, but concluded that implementing these types of closures would not be routine management measure changes under either the FMP at 6.2.D or Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.370(c). The Council considered several combinations of available management measures and looked at the projected impact of these measures on the resource and the fishery. In order to keep projected impacts of the non-whiting trawl fishery on canary rockfish within the 2008 OY, and to allow fishing opportunities in geographic areas with low canary rockfish bycatch, several modifications to the limited entry non-whiting trawl fishery regulations were recommended, including:

(1)modification of the trawl RCA boundaries with continued use of latitudes of interest to have more area specific restrictions;

(2)reduction in cumulative limits for some species using selective flatfish trawl gear; and

(3)increasing opportunities for sablefish and shortspine thornyheads in areas seaward of the trawl RCA. Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries In March 2007, the Council considered 2005 WCGOP data and the canary rockfish bycatch rates associated with portions of the coast and made fine scale spatial closures based on that analysis. Based on the 2005 WCGOP data, the areas of the coast with the highest canary rockfish bycatch rates were: the area shoreward of the RCA north of Cape Alava; the area shoreward of the RCA between Leadbetter Point and the Washington/Oregon border; and the area shoreward of the RCA between Cape Arago and Humbug Mountain. Based on analysis of 2006 WCGOP data, in relation to 2005 WCGOP data, canary rockfish bycatch rates differ annually in each area of the coast. Based on the 2006 WCGOP data, the areas of the coast with the highest canary rockfish bycatch rates were distributed slightly differently than in 2005: the area shoreward of the RCA between Cape Alava (48°10.00' N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46°38.17' N. lat.), and the area shoreward of the RCA between Humbug Mountain (42°40.50' N. lat.) and 40°10.00' N. lat. Therefore, a slightly broader scale approach to the area specific management measures was considered in March 2008, compared to March 2007. Incorporating the 2006 WCGOP data using a weighted average approach, as done in previous years, resulted in the following areas of the coast with the highest bycatch rate of canary rockfish relative to target species taken in the non-whiting trawl fishery: the area shoreward of the RCA north of the Columbia River (46°16.00' N. lat.); and the area shoreward of the RCA between Cape Arago (43°20.83' N. lat.) and 40°10.00' N. lat. The Council determined that, in order to constrain the incidental catch of canary rockfish and to prevent exceeding the 2008 canary rockfish OY, portions of the limited entry trawl RCA north of 40°10.00' N. lat. should be expanded shoreward, so that the RCA's shoreward boundary is no deeper than a line approximating the 60-fm (110-m) contour in the area north of the Washington/Oregon border and in the area between Cape Arago and 40°10.00' N. lat. This RCA expansion is expected to have a dual effect of eliminating fishing opportunity in areas with trawl efforts exhibiting higher canary rockfish bycatch rates, as well as shifting fishing effort to areas exhibiting relatively lower canary rockfish bycatch rates. The RCA expansion is based on refined modification of the shoreward RCA boundaries in areas north of 40°10.00' N. lat. and will restrict areas with the highest bycatch rates, as identified from a weighted average that incorporates 2005 and 2006 WCGOP data. The Council's Groundfish Management Team

(GMT)analyzed the effect of relatively greater restrictions within these two areas and, based on that analysis, recommended expanding the shoreward boundary of the trawl RCA to a line approximating the 60-fm (110-m) contour during the summer in the area between Cape Alava and the Oregon/Washington border and between Humbug Mountain and 40°10.00' N. lat. The Council also considered various alternatives that kept the shoreward boundary of the RCA at a line approximating the 75-fm (137-m) depth contour for portions of the year in the following areas of the coast: between Leadbetter Point and the Oregon/Washington border; and between Humbug Mountain and 40°10.00' N. lat. to reduce the disproportionate impact these area restrictions would have on vessels based in various ports along the Washington and Oregon coasts. However, the necessary reductions in cumulative trip limits required to keep these areas open shoreward of a line approximating the 75-fm (137-m) depth contour in summer months would make trawling with selective flatfish gear not economically viable for many participants in the non-whiting trawl fishery. In order to reduce economic impacts on vessels that formerly operated in the nearshore fishing areas, the Council supported liberalization, where possible, of the seaward boundary of the RCA in order to provide open fishing areas of relatively low canary bycatch to accommodate a shift in fishing effort from nearshore to offshore waters. The benefits of shifting effort offshore are twofold: since the highest rates of canary bycatch occur in the areas shoreward of the RCA, shifting effort seaward of the RCA further reduces the effort in the nearshore areas that remain open, thus reducing the amount of canary rockfish caught in those areas; and some displaced vessels whose effort was concentrated in the areas that are restricted may be able to shift their effort seaward of the RCA and remain in the fishery. Trawl fishing opportunities seaward of the trawl RCA are primarily constrained by measures intended to minimize the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish. Data from the NMFS trawl survey, logbook data, and anecdotal information from the trawl industry shows that various target species and darkblotched rockfish are found in shallower depths in the north and move deeper toward the south. The Council considered available data, which indicated that darkblotched rockfish have a relatively low bycatch rate outside of a line approximating the 150-fm (274-m) depth contour between the Oregon/Washington border and Cape Falcon (45°46.00' N. lat.) a relatively high bycatch rate between Leadbetter Point and the Oregon/Washington border. The 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY is 330-mt, 40-mt higher than in 2007, as the stock increases in biomass and approaches the rebuilding plan target year of 2011. The Council considered changes to the seaward boundary of the RCA within the context of inducing a shift in effort to areas with lower canary rockfish impacts, while maintaining protections for darkblotched rockfish to meet requirements in the rebuilding plan. Dividing the seaward boundary of the RCA allows more refined area management in response to differential darkblotched bycatch rates based on latitudes of interest and the depth-based shift in abundance, from north to south, of darkblotched rockfish and target species. Minor adjustments to the seaward boundary of the RCA were considered to shift effort seaward of the RCA by provide targeting opportunity while still protecting darkblotched rockfish. Based on the information and analysis described above, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing the following changes to the trawl RCA north of 40°10.00' N. lat.: between Cape Alava and the Oregon/Washington border, the shoreward boundary is shifted shoreward to a line approximating the 60-fm (110-m) depth contour from September 1 through October 31; between Leadbetter Point and the Washington/Oregon border, the seaward boundary is shifted seaward to a line approximating the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour from May 1 through June 30; between the Washington/Oregon border and Cape Falcon, the seaward boundary is shifted seaward to a line approximating the 150-fm (274-m) depth contour from May 1 through August 31; and between Humbug Mountain and 40°10.00' N. lat., the shoreward boundary is shifted shoreward to a line approximating the 60-fm (110-m) depth contour from May 1 through October 31. Limited Entry Non-Whiting Trawl Trip Limits In addition to area closures, the Council determined that cumulative limits in the limited entry trawl fishery north of 40°10.00' N. lat. should be modified to reduce effort and catch of target species with selective flatfish trawl gear, and increase effort and catch of some target species with large and small footrope trawl gear. These modifications were designed to induce a shift in effort seaward of the RCA in order to reduce impacts on co-occurring canary rockfish and prevent exceeding the 2008 canary rockfish OY, and to relieve some of the restrictions that were implemented in 2007 to prevent exceeding the lower 2007 darkblotched rockfish OY. The Council considered various combinations of cumulative limit adjustments paired with RCA modifications to reduce impacts to canary rockfish. As with the RCA boundary revisions, the Council's GMT analyzed revisions to trip limits intended to shift fishing effort away from areas where canary rockfish are more commonly taken as bycatch. The GMT recommended that the Council consider reducing Dover sole, other flatfish, and petrale sole opportunities for vessels using selective flatfish trawl gear, in order to provide for a disincentive to fish in areas where canary rockfish are found and to shift effort away from areas with a relatively high canary rockfish bycatch rate. Based on these analyses and recommendations, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a decrease in the limited entry selective flatfish trawl fishery cumulative limits north of 40°10.00' N. lat. beginning May 1: for Dover sole from “50,000 lb per two months” to “40,000 lb per two months” through August 31; for other flatfish from “70,000 lb per two months” to “50,000 lb per two months” through December 31; and for petrale sole, from “22,000 lb per two months” to “18,000 lb per two months” through October 31. If a vessel has both selective flatfish gear and large or small footrope gear on board during a cumulative limit period (either simultaneously or successively), the most restrictive cumulative limit for any gear on board during the cumulative limit period applies for the entire cumulative limit period. Therefore the trip limits for multiple trawl gear are modified for consistency with adjustments in trip limits for the above listed species and gears. In addition to liberalizing portions of the seaward boundary of the trawl RCA north of 40°10.00' N. lat., the Council considered increasing cumulative limits for: DTS species in areas seaward of the RCA in order to shift more fishing effort to offshore waters; and for minor slope rockfish south of 40°10.00' N. lat. North of 40°10.00' N. lat., the Council considered increasing limits for sablefish and shortspine thornyheads taken with large and small footrope trawl gears, which are only allowed when fishing seaward of the trawl RCA, to create incentives to fish in areas with lower canary rockfish bycatch rates, and to provide additional fishing opportunity under a less constraining 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY of 330 mt. South of 40°10.00' N. lat., the Council considered increasing limits for minor slope rockfish, sablefish and shortspine thornyheads to provide additional fishing opportunity under a less constraining 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY of 330 mt and to increase effort and catch of these target species seaward of the RCA. The Council determined that increasing trip limits for minor slope rockfish, sablefish, and shortspine thornyheads would help prevent exceeding the 2008 canary rockfish OY, and reduce economic impacts, for the following reasons:

(1)the shift in effort to areas with lower canary rockfish bycatch rates will reduce total coastwide incidental catch of canary rockfish; and

(2)it may reduce the economic impacts on vessels displaced by nearshore fishery restrictions by providing fishing opportunity while also constraining incidental catch of canary rockfish. Changes to management measures to constrain the catch of canary rockfish will also affect the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch (POP). Increasing incentives to fish seaward of the trawl RCA to reduce impacts on canary rockfish will increase effort in an area of known darkblotched rockfish abundance and the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish is likely to increase compared to predicted impacts under current management measures. POP is not considered to be a constraining species in the limited entry trawl fishery; the inseason adjustments to management measures implemented by this action are anticipated to keep POP total catch well within its 2008 OY of 150 mt. The Council focused its discussions of various continental slope actions to allow access to the increased 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY, while keeping projected total mortality within the 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY. The Council's GMT analyzed the effects of changes in RCA boundaries, cumulative limit opportunities, and fishing effort on the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish, and the combined effects of these actions are predicted to result in a total 2008 catch of darkblotched rockfish that is lower than the 2008 OY. Catch of darkblotched rockfish will be monitored and action can be taken inseason if necessary to modify the trawl RCA and cumulative limits to keep total catch within the 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY. Based on these analyses and recommendations, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing an increase in the limited entry trawl fishery cumulative limits taken with large and small footrope trawl gears coastwide beginning May 1: sablefish limits are modified from “17,000 lb per two months” to “19,000 lb per two months” through October 31, and shortspine thornyheads are modified from “12,000 lb per two months” to “25,000 lb per two months” through December 31. The Council also recommended and NMFS is implementing an increase in the limited entry trawl fishery cumulative limits for minor slope and darkblotched rockfish between 40°10.00' N. lat. and 38° N. lat., from “10,000 lb per two months” to “15,000 lb per two months” through October 31. Limed Entry Non-Tribal Whiting Trawl Fishery The availability of overfished species as incidental catch, particularly canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and widow rockfish, may prevent the industry from harvesting the entire Pacific whiting (whiting) OY during 2008. To allow the industry to have the opportunity to harvest the higher whiting OY while keeping incidental catch within the rebuilding OYs for the incidental species, the Council recommended bycatch limits for the overfished species most commonly taken as incidental catch in the non-tribal whiting fishery. With bycatch limits, the industry has the opportunity to harvest a larger amount of whiting, if they can do so while keeping the incidental catch of specific overfished species within adopted bycatch limits. Regulations provide for the automatic closure of the commercial (non-tribal) portion of the whiting fishery upon attainment of a bycatch limit. In recent years, the most constraining overfished species for the whiting fishery have been darkblotched, canary and widow rockfish. Current regulations at 50 CFR 660.373 (b)(4) contained the following bycatch limits for the commercial sectors (non-tribal) of the whiting fishery: 4.7 mt for canary, 275 mt for widow, and 25 mt for darkblotched rockfish. At the March 2008 Council meeting, the GMT examined potential bycatch of overfished species in relation to: performance of the 2007 non-tribal whiting fishery; other inseason management considerations; and the 2008 whiting OY. In 2007, the whiting primary season closed for the catcher processor, mothership and shore-based sectors on July 26, 2007 (72 FR 46176) when estimates indicated that the bycatch limit for widow rockfish had been reached. The 2007 whiting OY was 10 percent lower than the OY in 2006, however, the widow rockfish bycatch limit was raised in 2007 to accommodate an increasing widow rockfish biomass. Widow rockfish are currently under a rebuilding plan, with a projected rebuilding year of 2015. As the widow rockfish biomass increases, encounter rates in the whiting trawl fishery over recent years have also increased. In 2007, the non-tribal whiting fishery was closed upon attainment of the widow rockfish bycatch limit. Subsequently, the limit was increased from 220 mt to 275 mt. Final catch of widow rockfish by the 2007 non-tribal whiting fishery was 235 mt. With a recommended 2008 U.S. whiting OY of 269,545 mt, and in the absence of any further restrictions, the bycatch of canary rockfish was projected to be approximately 4.0 mt, the bycatch of widow rockfish was projected to be approximately 364.4 mt, and the bycatch of darkblotched rockfish was projected to be approximately 15.4 mt. If a widow bycatch limit was set high enough to accommodate these projected impacts, and the limit was reached, the total impacts on widow rockfish combined with all other fisheries were projected to exceed the 2008 widow rockfish OY. The GMT explored mechanisms to reduce impacts on widow rockfish, so that bycatch limits for all species could be set at a level that could more likely accommodate the 2008 non-tribal whiting OY. Projected impacts on darkblotched rockfish, after implementation of all the RCA and cumulative limit adjustments in this final rule, was 42 mt below the 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY. After conversations with industry about mechanisms to induce an effort shift away from widow rockfish, the GMT explored options that would raise the darkblotched rockfish bycatch limit, to increase flexibility in behavior of the non-tribal whiting fleet, so that they can move to offshore areas if they encounter widow rockfish early in the season. The GMT estimated that if the darkblotched rockfish bycatch limit were raised from 25 mt, to approximately 40 mt, the projected impacts on widow rockfish would decrease to approximately 296 mt. After considering the projected catch of overfished species in all other fishing and research activities, the Council recommended that the canary rockfish bycatch limits for the non-tribal whiting fishery remain at 4.7 mt, which is the same limit that was available during the 2006 and 2007 primary whiting season. The Council recommended maintaining a widow rockfish bycatch limit of 275 mt, the same bycatch limit that was in effect at the end of the 2007 season. To better accommodate current incidental catch projections for the non-tribal whiting fishery, and to induce a shift in effort to areas with lower widow rockfish abundance, the Council recommended the darkblotched rockfish bycatch limit be raised to 40 mt. With this increase, the 2008 estimated total catch of darkblotched rockfish is still predicted to be well below the 2008 darkblotched rockfish OY of 330 mt. Based on these analyses and recommendations, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing an increase in the darkblotched rockfish bycatch limit, in the non-tribal whiting fishery, to 40 mt. Open Access Sablefish Daily Trip Limit Fishery The Council discussed reducing the sablefish daily trip limit

(DTL)fishery's cumulative limit north of 36° N. lat. in anticipation of a large influx of fishing effort into the sablefish DTL fishery as a result of potential salmon fishery restrictions and closures. The salmon fishery in 2008 is likely to be severely constrained off the coasts of Oregon and California. Fishery managers have received a number of inquiries from salmon fishers who are interested in moving into the open access sablefish DTL fishery. In 2006, restrictions in the salmon fishery drove an influx of fishers into the open access sablefish DTL fishery and cumulative limits were reduced on May 1, 2006, (71 FR 24601) to provide a longer season. Catches of sablefish were higher than projected throughout the year, and the sablefish DTL fishery was closed north of 36° N. lat. on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 58289). Only a minimal amount of hook-and-line or pot fishing gear is needed to participate in the sablefish DTL fishery, increasing the likelihood of fishers moving into this fishery. Based on the proposed options for salmon fishery regulations considered by the Council at their March meeting, the 2008 salmon season will be more restricted than it was in 2006. Under the current limits, a large increase in the number of open access sablefish DTL fishery participants could cause an early attainment of the open access sablefish allocation. If the allocation were reached, the fishery would need to be closed, as it was in October 2006. Though the open access sablefish DTL fishery could provide fishing opportunity for displaced salmon fishers, it would likely have a large effect on fishers who have historically participated in the sablefish fishery. Reducing the open access cumulative limit for sablefish on May 1, 2008, is predicted to result in a longer season, which would benefit fishers who have historically participated in the year-round fishery. The Council considered various reductions to the current open access sablefish DTL fishery's daily, weekly, and two month limits to sustain the open access sablefish DTL fishery until the end of year. The Council considered industry comments that further reductions in the daily limit would jeopardize the viability of the fishery, due to rising fuel costs, and the GMT analysis indicated that reductions in weekly limits would not impact overall sablefish catch. The Council recommended that the daily and weekly trip limits for sablefish remain the same and that the cumulative limits for sablefish be reduced to 2,200 lb (998 kg) per two months. The Pacific Council will analyze effort shifts into the open access sablefish DTL fishery at their June 8-13, 2008, meeting when new data from the fishery are available. Therefore, the Pacific Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a reduction in the open access cumulative trip limits for sablefish north of 36° N. lat. from “300 lb (136 kg) per day, or one landing per week of up to 800 lb (363 kg), not to exceed 2,400 lb (1,089 kg) per two months” to “300 lb (136 kg) per day, or one landing per week of up to 800 lb (363 kg), not to exceed 2,200 lb (998 kg) per two months”, beginning May 1. California Recreational Fishery In the California recreational groundfish fishery, the California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG)manages yelloweye, canary, and minor nearshore rockfish under state harvest limits. State harvest limits apply to landings by recreational ocean boats, shore catch, and discards. In September 2007, California's recreational catch estimates and projections based on recent catch patterns indicated that the California State harvest limit for yelloweye and canary rockfish, which are 2.1 mt, and 9 mt, respectively, were projected to be exceeded. California projected that, without taking inseason action, the total 2007 mortality from the California fishery, combined with all other coastwide recreational and commercial fishery impacts, would exceed the 2007 yelloweye rockfish OY. To reduce recreational fishery impacts on yelloweye and canary rockfish, California closed the recreational boat-based fisheries north of 37°11' N. lat. for all Federal groundfish species subject to bag limits in that area, effective October 1, 2007. California projected that the October 1, 2007, closure would reduce the total mortality from the California recreational fishery to: 7.2 mt yelloweye rockfish; and 10.1 mt canary rockfish. CDFG presented final catch estimates from the 2007 recreational fishery to the Council at their March 2008 meeting. The final catch estimates were: 8.0 mt yelloweye rockfish; and 10.9 mt canary rockfish; which exceeded the 2007 harvest guidelines for these species. CDFG analyzed several suites of management measures and developed a proposal to reduce the projected catch of these species to a level below the California harvest guidelines in the 2008 recreational groundfish season: 2.1 mt yelloweye rockfish; and 9 mt canary rockfish. To improve inseason tracking of catches in the California recreational fishery, CDFG fishery managers will be working with California Recreational Fishery Survey samplers to monitor the rate of catch accrual of yelloweye and canary rockfish, inform enforcement of ports with landings of prohibited species, and identify ports at which additional outreach and education efforts would be beneficial. CDFG will also be implementing five recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas in State waters, between Pigeon Point (37°11' N. lat.) and the Oregon/California border (42° N. lat.), within which the recreational fishery for rockfish, cabezon, greenlings, and lingcod, will be closed to reduce projected impacts on yelloweye rockfish. CDFG will also be implementing a 20-fm (37-m) depth restriction in the recreational fishery between Pigeon Point and the Oregon/Washington border (the Northern and North-Central Management Areas). The 20-fm (37-m) depth restriction lies primarily within State waters, however in some areas of the coast it extends into Federal water. CDFG requested that the Council adopt use of the 20-fm (37-m) depth restriction in Federal regulations, instead of the 30-fm (55-m) depth restriction currently in Federal regulations, to conform to State regulations. Projections indicate that this suite of management measures will reduce recreational fishery impacts on yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish, and keep the mortality of yelloweye and canary rockfish within the 2008 California harvest guidelines. Shore fisheries, including shore-based diving, angling and spear fishing, were not affected by this closure, nor were fisheries not subject to bag limits. Therefore, in order to conform recreational management measures for Federal waters (3-200 nm) to management measures for California state waters (0-3 nm), the Pacific Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a 20-fm (37-m) depth restriction in the California recreational fishery between Pigeon Point and the Oregon/Washington border (the Northern and North-Central Management Areas) beginning May 1, 2008. Classification These actions are taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.370

(c)and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. These actions are taken under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and are in accordance with 50 CFR part 660, the regulations implementing the FMP. These actions are based on the most recent data available. The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, (see ADDRESSES) during business hours. For the following reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to the 2008 groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive part of the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective May 1, 2008. The recently available data upon which these recommendations were based was provided to the Council, and the Council made its recommendations, at its March 10-14, 2008, meeting in Sacramento, CA. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent the Agency from managing fisheries using the best available science by approaching without exceeding the OYs for federally managed species. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect: commercial trawl fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California; bycatch limits in the commercial non-tribal whiting trawl fishery; and recreational fisheries off California. These adjustments to management measures must be implemented by May 1, 2008, to: prevent exceeding the 2008 OYs for canary and yelloweye rockfish; prevent premature closure of fisheries; and eliminate confusion for the public and to improve enforcement by ensuring that Federal and state recreational regulations conform to each other. Changes to the cumulative limits in the limited entry trawl fishery and to the trawl RCA are needed to reduce the projected bycatch of canary rockfish, a groundfish species that is currently subject to rebuilding requirements. The projected bycatch of canary rockfish must be reduced in order to keep coastwide fisheries from exceeding that species's rebuilding OY. Changes to the trawl RCA and changes to trip limits in the limited entry trawl fishery for Dover sole, other flatfish, and petrale sole to reduce the bycatch of canary rockfish must be implemented in a timely manner by May 1, 2008, so that the total catch of canary rockfish stays within its 2008 OY, as defined in the rebuilding plan for this species. Changes to cumulative limits in the limited entry trawl fishery for sablefish, shortspine thornyheads, and slope rockfish must be implemented in a timely manner by May 1, 2008, to: relieve a restriction and to allow fisheries to approach, but not exceed, the 2008 OY for darkblotched rockfish; and to induce a shift in effort to offshore areas where incidental catch of canary rockfish is lower, so that the total catch of canary rockfish stays within its 2008 OY. A change to the non-tribal whiting fishery bycatch limit for darkblotched rockfish must be implemented as close as possible to the start of the California whiting fishery, on April 1, 2008. Ensuring that the increase in the darkblotched rockfish bycatch limit is in place by the season start date provides an opportunity for participants in this fishery to catch the available whiting quota without reaching or exceeding the bycatch limit of widow rockfish or its OY, prematurely closing the fishery. Changes to the California recreational groundfish RCA must be implemented in a timely manner by May 1, 2008, in order to eliminate confusion for the public, and to improve enforcement by ensuring that Federal and state recreational regulations conform to each other. These revisions are needed to protect overfished groundfish species and to keep the harvest of other groundfish species within the harvest levels projected for 2008, while allowing fishermen access to healthy stocks. Without these measures in place, the fisheries could risk exceeding harvest levels early in the year, causing early and unanticipated fishery closures and economic harm to fishing communities. Delaying these changes would keep management measures in place that are not based on the best available data and which could lead to early closures of the fishery if harvest of groundfish exceeds levels projected for 2008. Such delay would impair achievement of one of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP objectives of providing for year-round harvest opportunities or extending fishing opportunities as long as practicable during the fishing year. In addition, it is also in the public interest to implement the recreational measures in this document as soon as possible to improve enforcement and eliminate confusion for the public by removing differences between different regulations that affect the same waters and fisheries. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Fishing, Fisheries, and Indian Fisheries. Dated: April 14, 2008. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows: PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 660.373, paragraph (b)(4) is revised to read as follows: § 660.373 Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.

(b)* * *

(4)*Bycatch limits in the whiting fishery.* The bycatch limits for the whiting fishery may be used inseason to close a sector or sectors of the whiting fishery to achieve the rebuilding of an overfished or depleted stock, under routine management measure authority at § 660.370(c)(1)(ii). These limits are routine management measures under § 660.370(c) and, as such, may be adjusted inseason or may have new species added to the list of those with bycatch limits. The whiting fishery bycatch limits for the sectors identified in § 660.323(a) are: 4.7 mt of canary rockfish; 275 mt of widow rockfish; and 40 mt of darkblotched rockfish. 3. In § 660.384, paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)( *1* ) and ( *2* ) are revised to read as follows: § 660.384 Recreational fishery management measures.

(c)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)* * * ( *1* ) Between 42° N. lat. (California/Oregon border) and 40°10.00′ N. lat. (North Region), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except “other flatfish” as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 1 through December 31; and is closed entirely from January 1 through April 30 (i.e., prohibited seaward of the shoreline). ( *2* ) Between 40°10' N. lat. and 37°11' N. lat. (North Central Region), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except “other flatfish” as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from June 1 through November 30; and is closed entirely from January 1 through May 31 and from December 1 31 (i.e., prohibited seaward of the shoreline). Closures around the Farallon Islands (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) and Cordell Banks (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D) of this section) also apply in this area. 4. Tables 3 (North), 3 (South), 5 (North), and 5 (South) to part 660 subpart G are revised to read as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-S ER18AP08.000 ER18AP08.001 ER18AP08.002 ER18AP08.003 ER18AP08.004 ER18AP08.005 ER18AP08.006 ER18AP08.007 ER18AP08.008 [FR Doc. E8-8405 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C 73 76 Friday, April 18, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0446; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-021-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lindstrand Balloons Ltd. Models 42A, 56A, 60A, 69A, 77A, 90A, 105A, 120A, 150A, 180A, 210A, 240A, 260A, and 310A Balloons AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Defective burner hoses have been identified which might develop a leak. A significant leak, if it was ignited, could hazard the balloon and occupants. Since the issue of AD G-2003-0010 there have been occurrences of hose failure in batches not identified in the earlier bulletins. LHAB Service Bulletin

(SB)No. 11 supersedes the earlier SBs and revises the applicability as required. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0446; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-021-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On March 12, 2008, we issued AD 2008-06-15, Amendment 39-15427 (73 FR 13113). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. AD 2008-06-15 was issued as an interim action in order to address the need for the immediate inspection and pressure test of applicable burner hoses for leaks and replacement of hoses and end fittings if found defective. The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive AD No. G-2008-0001, dated January 9, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI allows for repetitive inspections of applicable burner hoses at intervals not to exceed ten hours time in service. The MCAI also requires replacing applicable burner hoses and end fittings before the next annual inspection. The Administrative Procedure Act does not permit the FAA to “bootstrap” a long-term requirement into an urgent safety of flight action where the rule becomes effective at the same time the public has the opportunity to comment. The short-term action and the long-term action were analyzed separately for justification to bypass prior public notice. We are issuing this proposed AD to address the mandatory replacement of the burner hose and end fitting. Relevant Service Information Lindstrand Balloons Ltd. has issued Lindstrand Hot Air Balloons Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 11, Issue 1, dated September 24, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 422 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $33,760, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $200, for a cost of $280 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15427 (73 FR 13113), and adding the following new AD: **Lindstrand Balloons Ltd.:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0446; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-021-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2008-06-15, Amendment 39-15427. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Models 42A, 56A, 60A, 69A, 77A, 90A, 105A, 120A, 150A, 180A, 210A, 240A, 260A, and 310A balloons that are:

(i)Certificated in any category; and

(ii)Equipped with burners with serial numbers BU502 through BU792, except BU507, BU511, BU512, BU614, BU643, BU655, BU656, BU719, BU723, BU746, BU749, BU752, BU754, BU762, BU779, BU781, BU785, BU787, and BU789. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Defective burner hoses have been identified which might develop a leak. A significant leak, if it was ignited, could hazard the balloon and occupants. Since the issue of AD G-2003-0010 there have been occurrences of hose failure in batches not identified in the earlier bulletins. LHAB Service Bulletin

(SB)No. 11 supersedes the earlier SBs and revises the applicability as required. The MCAI requires you inspect the hose and to identify whether the hose is from the affected batch of hoses and to inspect and replace any defective hose and end fitting from the affected batch. Actions and Compliance

(f)Do the following unless already done:

(1)Before further flight as of April 1, 2008 (the compliance date retained from AD 2008-06-15), inspect the balloon burner to determine whether it has a hose from the affected batch of hoses following Lindstrand Hot Air Balloons Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 11, Issue 1, dated September 24, 2007.

(2)If as a result of the inspection required by (f)(1) of this AD you find a hose from the affected batch, before further flight, inspect for leaks and conduct a pressure test following Lindstrand Hot Air Balloons Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 11, Issue 1, dated September 24, 2007, and repetitively thereafter inspect and conduct a pressure test at intervals not to exceed 10 hours time-in-service.

(3)If as a result of any inspection or test required by (f)(2) of this AD you find a defective hose, before further flight, replace it and the end fitting with a new hose and new end fitting following the maintenance manual. This action terminates the repetitive requirement in (f)(2) of this AD.

(4)Unless already done, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace any hose from the affected batch with a new hose and end fitting. After doing this replacement, no further action is required by this AD. Note 1: At any time after the effective day of this AD, you may replace the hose and end fitting to terminate the repetitive inspection and testing requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Emergency Airworthiness Directive AD No. G-2008-0001, dated January 9, 2008; and Lindstrand Hot Air Balloons Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 11, Issue 1, dated September 24, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 11, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-8361 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0444; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-3 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-3 Otter when the lock wire hole in the ignition connector plug on the firewall broke out, allowing the plug to vibrate loose. A maintenance safety feature grounds out both magneto systems through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated into the Cannon plug. The DHC-2 system is similar in design. Subsequent to the issuance of AD CF-2001-36 a complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-2 Beaver resulting in engine failure and subsequent forced approach and landing. Investigation by the Transportation Safety Board determined the internal failure of the magneto firewall connector resulted in both magneto “P” leads shorting to ground. A maintenance “safety” feature through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated in the firewall connector on many DHC-2 aircraft grounds out both magneto systems when the connector is disconnected. This connector type is readily identified when disconnected by the existence of three internal pins on the firewall and magneto harness side, one of which is shorted directly to ground. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:

(516)228-7303; fax:

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0444; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On October 12, 2004, we issued AD 2004-21-06, Amendment 39-13827 (69 FR 61758, October 21, 2004). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. Since we issued AD 2004-21-06, the manufacturer has developed a modification kit to replace the magneto firewall connector with parts of improved design. Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF-2001-36R1, dated January 21, 2008, and AD No. CF-2001-37R, dated January 21, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-3 Otter when the lock wire hole in the ignition connector plug on the firewall broke out, allowing the plug to vibrate loose. A maintenance safety feature grounds out both magneto systems through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated into the Cannon plug. The DHC-2 system is similar in design. Subsequent to the issuance of AD CF-2001-36 a complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-2 Beaver resulting in engine failure and subsequent forced approach and landing. Investigation by the Transportation Safety Board determined the internal failure of the magneto firewall connector resulted in both magneto “P” leads shorting to ground. A maintenance “safety” feature through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated in the firewall connector on many DHC-2 aircraft ground out both magneto systems when the connector is disconnected. This connector type is readily identified when disconnected by the existence of three internal pins on the firewall and magneto harness side, one of which is shorted directly to ground. These connectors are no longer in production. Since no effective Instructions for Continued Airworthiness exist to ensure the safety feature of these connectors will operate correctly when disconnected, or will ensure the internal integrity of the connector while in service, this directive is revised to mandate replacement of connectors with a different design. Viking Air Limited has developed SB V2/0001 to provide for the installation of a replacement connector, similar in design to magneto systems in service today. This modification incorporates a “straight through” type connector, ensuring magneto circuit integrity should the connection open. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Viking Air Limited has issued the following service bulletins: • Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number V2/0001, dated June 27, 2007; and • Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin Number V3/0001, dated June 27, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimated that this proposed AD will affect 159 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $881 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $267,279, or $1,681 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13827 (69 FR 61758; October 21, 2004), and adding the following new AD: **Viking Air Limited:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0444; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-024-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by May 19, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-21-06, Amendment 39-13827. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following model and serial number airplanes certificated in any category: Model Serial No. DHC-2 Mk. I All. DHC-2 Mk. II All. DHC-3 All serial numbers with piston engines. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 26: Fire Protection. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-3 Otter when the lock wire hole in the ignition connector plug on the firewall broke out, allowing the plug to vibrate loose. A maintenance safety feature grounds out both magneto systems through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated into the Cannon plug. The DHC-2 system is similar in design. Subsequent to the issuance of AD CF-2001-36 a complete loss of both ignition systems occurred on a DHC-2 Beaver resulting in engine failure and subsequent forced approach and landing. Investigation by the Transportation Safety Board determined the internal failure of the magneto firewall connector resulted in both magneto “P” leads shorting to ground. A maintenance “safety” feature through a spring-loaded safety pin incorporated in the firewall connector on many DHC-2 aircraft ground out both magneto systems when the connector is disconnected. This connector type is readily identified when disconnected by the existence of three internal pins on the firewall and magneto harness side, one of which is shorted directly to ground. These connectors are no longer in production. Since no effective Instructions for Continued Airworthiness exist to ensure the safety feature of these connectors will operate correctly when disconnected, or will ensure the internal integrity of the connector while in service, this directive is revised to mandate replacement of connectors with a different design. Viking Air Limited has developed SB V2/0001 to provide for the installation of a replacement connector, similar in design to magneto systems in service today. This modification incorporates a “straight through” type connector, ensuring magneto circuit integrity should the connection open. Actions and Compliance

(f)Inspect the connector plugs on the fore side of the firewall for security and the connector plug lockwire to ensure it is intact and the holes in the plugs are not broken out or cracked. Initially inspect within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after December 6, 2004 (the compliance date retained from AD 2004-21-06). Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS until the modification required in paragraph

(h)of this AD is done. Do the inspections following deHavilland Beaver Alert Service Bulletin Number A2/53, Revision B, dated May 28, 2004; and deHavilland Otter Alert Service Bulletin Number A3/53, Revision B, dated May 28, 2004, as applicable.

(g)During any inspection required in paragraph

(f)of this AD, if the lockwire holes or the lockwire is found damaged, install Modification Kit Number C2VMK0001-1 or Modification Kit Number C3VMK0001-1, as applicable. Install the modification kit before further flight following the Accomplishment Instructions in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number V2/0001, dated June 27, 2007; and Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin Number V3/0001, dated June 27, 2007, as applicable. Installing the modification kit terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph

(f)of this AD.

(h)Unless already done, replace the magneto firewall connector by installing Modification Kit Number C2VMK0001-1 or Modification Kit Number C3VMK0001-1, as applicable. Install the modification kit within the next 6 months after the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number V2/0001, dated June 27, 2007; and Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin Number V3/0001, dated June 27, 2007, as applicable. Installing the modification kit terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph

(f)of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: AD 2004-21-06 required incorporating repetitive inspections of the connector plugs and the connector plug lockwire on the fore side of the firewall into the maintenance program while the MCAI required incorporating Temporary Revision No. 14, dated August 24, 2001, into the applicable maintenance manual in order to incorporate the repetitive inspections into the maintenance program. Other FAA AD Provisions

(i)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:

(516)228-7303; fax:

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(j)Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2001-36R1, dated January 21, 2008; and AD No. CF-2001-37R, dated January 21, 2008; and Viking Air Limited DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number V2/0001, dated June 27, 2007; and Viking Air Limited DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin Number V3/0001, dated June 27, 2007; for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 11, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-8365 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 736, 740, 742, 744, 748, 752, 760, and 772 [Docket No. 080220216-8518-01] RIN 0694-AD59 Conforming Changes to Certain End-User/End-Use Based Controls in the EAR; Clarification of the Term “Transfer” and Related Terms as Used in the EAR AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)proposes to amend the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)by making conforming changes in certain end-user/end-use controls in the EAR to ensure that the terminology used to describe each type of end-user/end-use control is consistent, to the fullest extent possible, with the terminology in other such controls in the EAR. The proposed amendments would clarify that a party cannot proceed with an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) that is in transit at the time the party is informed by BIS that a license is required (in accordance with certain end-user/end-use controls in the EAR), unless that party first obtains a license from BIS authorizing the completion of the transaction. These proposed changes to part 744 are intended to enhance the ability of BIS to stop items subject to the EAR, including items not on the Commerce Control List, from being exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) when there is an unacceptable risk that such items will be used in, or diverted to, any of the proliferation activities specified in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6 of the EAR. This rule also proposes to amend the EAR by revising the definition of the term “transfer” and certain related terms, to provide greater clarity regarding these provisions. DATES: Comments must be received by June 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this rule may be sent to the **Federal Register** eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by e-mail to *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* . Include RIN 0694-AD59 in the subject line of the message. Comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room H2705, Washington, DC 20230, ATTN: RIN 0694-AD59; or by fax to

(202)482-3355. Send comments regarding the collection of information to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to

(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room H2705, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; by telephone:

(202)482-2440; or by fax: 202-482-3355. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Conforming Changes to Certain End-User/End-Use Based Controls in the EAR Part 744 of the EAR deals with the end-user and end-use based control policy under the EAR. Section 744.3 prohibits exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to certain missile-related end-uses. Section 744.4 prohibits exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to certain chemical and biological proliferation activities. Section 744.6 prohibits certain activities by U.S. persons in support of certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological end-uses. Section 744.2 presently prohibits exports and reexports of items subject to the EAR to certain nuclear proliferation activities. This rule proposes to add transfer (in-country) to the scope of the prohibition set forth in § 744.2 to ensure that the language in that section conforms with the language in §§ 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6. Within each of these sections of part 744, there is a paragraph b that includes “is informed” provisions that set out the requirements of what persons need to do once they are informed by BIS that their transactions would be subject to the prohibitions set forth in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 or 744.6. Under the current EAR, there are minor differences in the terminology used to describe the end-user/end-use controls in each of these sections. This rule proposes to amend the end-user/end-use controls in these sections of part 744 to ensure that the terminology used in any one of these sections conforms, to the fullest extent possible, with the terminology used in the other sections. These proposed changes are intended to make the end-user/end-use controls in part 744 of the EAR more consistent as well as transparent, so that members of the public can more clearly understand their obligations under the EAR. In addition, this rule proposes to add new provisions to § 744.1 to clarify that a party cannot proceed with an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) that is in transit at the time the party is informed by BIS that a license is required (in accordance with the end-user/end-use controls in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 or 744.6 of the EAR), unless that party first obtains a license from BIS authorizing the completion of the transaction. This rule proposes that once a person “is informed” by BIS that a transaction is subject to one of the prohibitions in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 or 744.6, a person would be required to apply for authorization from BIS before proceeding with the transaction. This rule further proposes to amend the EAR to clearly explain the steps a person must take if an item included in such a transaction is already in transit when a person “is informed” by BIS. These proposed changes to part 744 are intended to enhance the ability of BIS to stop items subject to the EAR, including items not on the Commerce Control List, from being exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) when there is an unacceptable risk that such items will be used in, or diverted to, any of the proliferation activities specified in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6 of the EAR. This clarification is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), which includes binding obligations on all UN Member States to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery, including by establishing appropriate controls over related materials. UNSCR 1540 stipulates that States are to establish, develop, review and maintain appropriate effective national export and transshipment controls over such items, including appropriate laws and regulations to control export, transit, transshipment and re-export; and to establish and enforce appropriate criminal or civil penalties for violations of such export control laws and regulations. Through this clarification, the United States is continuing to carry out its commitment to the Proliferation Security Initiative

(PSI)Statement of Interdiction Principles, which states that PSI partners will work to strengthen their relevant national legal authorities where necessary and not to allow any persons subject to their jurisdiction to transport or assist in the transport of any cargoes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, or related materials to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern. The PSI is a global effort that aims to stop shipments of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials flowing to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern. Announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003, the PSI stems from the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction issued in December 2002. That strategy recognizes the need for more robust tools to defeat the proliferation of WMD around the world, and specifically identifies interdiction as an area where greater focus will be placed. The PSI is a set of activities, not a formal treaty-based organization, that focuses on establishing greater coordination among its partner states when a particular action is needed. This rule makes the following specific revisions to the EAR: 1. In § 744.1 (General Provisions), this rule proposes to amend paragraph (a)(1) (Introduction), by adding “transfer (in-country)” to specify clearly that the prohibitions in §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6 also apply to such scenarios. This rule also proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2) (Determine Applicability), by adding a sentence at the end of that paragraph that states “For exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) that are in transit at the time you are informed by BIS that a license is required in accordance with §§ 744.2(b), 744.3(b), 744.4(b) or 744.6(b) of the EAR, you may not proceed any further with the transaction, unless you first obtain a license from BIS (see part 748 of the EAR for instructions on how to apply for a license).” This rule also proposes to amend paragraph (a)(1) by adding “transfer (in-country)” to specify clearly that the prohibition specified in § 744.5 also applies to such scenarios. 2. In § 744.2 (Restrictions on Certain Nuclear End-Uses), this rule proposes to amend paragraph

(a)(General Prohibition) by clarifying that this prohibition in § 744.2 also applies to transfers (in-country) to conform with the language used in §§ 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6. In paragraph

(b)(Additional Prohibition), this rule proposes to amend the heading to clarify that this paragraph applies an additional prohibition “on persons informed by BIS”. Also in paragraph (b), this rule proposes to amend the “is informed” provisions to conform with the “is informed” provisions in §§ 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6. Specifically, the proposed rule would remove the phrase “exporters or reexporters”, replace it with the term “persons” in three locations, and add the phrase “transfer (in-country)” to clarify that this prohibition also applies to transfers (in-country). Also in paragraph (b), this rule proposes to add the phrase “or for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country)” before the phrase “of specified items” in the first sentence, among other minor changes, to conform with §§ 744.3, 744.4 and 744.6. 3. In § 744.3 (Restrictions on Certain Rocket Systems (Including Ballistic Missile Systems and Space Launch Vehicles and Sounding Rockets) and Unmanned Air Vehicles (Including Cruise Missile Systems, Target Drones and Reconnaissance Drones) End-Uses), this rule proposes to amend paragraph

(a)(General Prohibition) by inserting the word “that” after the phrase, “* * * or transfer you know” and by deleting the word “the” in the phrase “at the time of export” to conform with §§ 744.2, 744.4 and 744.6. In paragraph

(b)(Additional Prohibition), this rule proposes to amend the heading to clarify that this paragraph applies an additional prohibition “on persons informed by BIS”. Also in paragraph (b), this rule proposes to amend the “is informed” provisions by adding the word “persons” in two locations, by adding the phrase “(in-country)” after the word transfer and by adding the phrase “or for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country)” before the phrase “of specified items” in the first sentence, among other minor changes, to conform with §§ 744.2, 744.4 and 744.6. 4. In § 744.6 (Restrictions on Certain Activities of U.S. Persons), this rule proposes to amend paragraph

(a)(General Prohibition) to conform with §§ 744.2, 744.3 and 744.4 by adding the phrase “(in-country)” after the word “transfer” in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) and in paragraph (a)(3) to clarify that this prohibition in § 744.6 also applies to transfers (in-country). In paragraph

(b)(Additional Prohibitions on U.S. persons informed by BIS) this rule proposes to update the “is informed” provisions to conform with §§ 744.2, 744.3 and 744.4; specifically by adding the phrase “by specific notice” after the word “individually” in the first sentence and by removing the term “exporter” and replacing it with the term “U.S. persons” in the last sentence. 5. In § 744.5 (Restrictions on Certain Maritime Nuclear Propulsion End-Uses), this rule proposes to amend paragraph

(a)(General Prohibition) by clarifying that this prohibition in § 744.5 also applies to transfers (in-country). With this proposed rule, this paragraph

(a)would prohibit the exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to defined nuclear maritime end-uses in § 744.5. Revisions to Definitions of Transfer and Related Terms In § 772.1 (Definitions of Terms as Used in the Export Administration Regulations), this rule proposes to revise the term “transfer” to clarify that the term merely refers to a conveyance of items. This rule proposes to further clarify the definition by including the definition of “in-country transfer/transfer (in-country)” as an ancillary definition to the term “transfer”, referring to the conveyance of items within a single foreign country. These proposed revisions will provide greater clarity regarding the meaning of these defined terms under the EAR. In a note at the end of these definitions, this rule adds cross references to §§ 750.7(c) (Changes to a license) and 764.2(e) (Acting with knowledge of a violation). The term “transfer” may also be included on licenses issued by BIS. In that regard, these cross references are a reminder to persons involved with items authorized by a BIS license that changes that can be made to a BIS license are the non-material changes described in § 750.7(c). In addition, persons should be aware that any person that knowingly makes a material change to a BIS license without proper authorization would violate § 764.2(e) of the EAR. This rule also proposes to correct several places in the EAR where the term “transfer” is used, but the intended meaning is “transfer (in-country)” or “in-country transfer”. Specifically, references to the term “transfer” in § 736.2, General Order No. 2 to Supp. No. 1 to part 736, §§ 740.5, 740.7, 740.9, 740.11, 740.17, 742.15, 744.3, 744.4, 744.6, Supp. No. 2 to part 748, §§ 752.5, 752.8, 752.16, and Supplement No. 3 to part 752 are proposed to be clarified with this rule. This rule also proposes to clarify that the term “retransfer” means “in-country transfer” by replacing the term “retransfer” with the term “transfer (in-country)” in §§ 740.11, 740.17, 742.15, 752.5, and Supp. No. 3 to part 752. This rule also proposes to clarify that the terms “transferred” and “transfer”, in the context of §§ 760.1 and 760.3, mean “assigned to” and “assignment”, respectively. Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This proposed rule involves a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. This proposed rule is expected to have a minimal increase on the total number of license applications submitted to BIS. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this rule. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. However, in order to obtain the benefit of a variety of viewpoints before publishing any final rule, BIS is issuing this proposed rule with request for comments. Comments must be received by BIS no later than June 17, 2008. In developing a final rule, BIS will consider all comments received on or before that date. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. BIS will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. BIS will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of the final rule. All public comments on this proposed rule must be in writing (including fax or e-mail) and will be a matter of public record, available for public inspection and copying at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* and on the BIS Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Web site at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia* . BIS does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at

(202)482-0500 for assistance. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 736 and 772 Exports. 15 CFR Part 740, 748, and 752 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 742 Exports, Terrorism. 15 CFR Part 744 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism. 15 CFR Part 760 Boycotts, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 736, 740, 742, 744, 748, 752, 760, and 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 736—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 736 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 2151 (note), Pub. L. 108-175; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp. p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 2. Section 736.2 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows: § 736.2 General prohibitions and determination of applicability.

(b)* * *

(10)* * * You may not sell, transfer, export, reexport, finance, order, buy, remove, conceal, store, use, loan, dispose of, transport, forward, or otherwise service, in whole or in part, any item subject to the EAR and exported or to be exported with knowledge that a violation of the Export Administration Regulations, the Export Administration Act or any order, license, License Exception, or other authorization issued thereunder has occurred, is about to occur, or is intended to occur in connection with the item. * * * 3. General Order No. 2 to Supplement No. 1 to part 736, is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph

(b)to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 736—General Orders General Order No. 2

(b)* * * License conditions requiring written U.S. Government authorization for the reexport, transfer (in-country), or resale of items already exported or reexported remain in effect, and requests for BIS authorization to reexport, transfer (in-country), or sell such items will require interagency approval. PART 740—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 740 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 5. Section 740.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 740.5 Civil end-users (CIV).

(b)*Restrictions.* —(1) *Restricted end-users and end-uses.* You may not use CIV if you “know” the item will be or is intended to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to military uses or military end-users. Such exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) will continue to require a license. In addition to conventional military activities, military uses include any proliferation activities described and prohibited by part 744 of the EAR. 6. Section 740.7 is amended: a. By revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3); and b. By revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § 740.7 Computers (APP).

(b)* * *

(3)Computers and software eligible for License Exception APP may not be reexported or transferred (in-country) without prior authorization from BIS, *i.e.* , a license, a permissive reexport, another License Exception, or “No License Required”. * * *

(4)* * *

(5)License Exception APP does not authorize exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) for nuclear, chemical, biological, or missile end-users and end-uses subject to license requirements under § 744.2, § 744.3, § 744.4, and § 744.5 of the EAR. Such exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) will continue to require a license and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Reexports and transfers (in-country) to these end-users and end-uses in eligible countries are strictly prohibited without prior authorization. 7. Section 740.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(A) to read as follows: § 740.9 Temporary imports, exports, and reexports (TMP).

(a)* * *

(2)* * *

(ix)*Temporary exports to a U.S. subsidiary, affiliate or facility in Country Group B.*

(A)Components, parts, tools or test equipment exported by a U.S. person to its subsidiary, affiliate or facility in a country listed in Country Group B (see Supplement No. 1 to this part) that is owned or controlled by the U.S. person, if the components, part, tool or test equipment is to be used for manufacture, assembly, testing, production or modification, provided that no components, parts, tools or test equipment or the direct product of such components, parts, tools or test equipment are transferred (in-country) or reexported from such subsidiary, affiliate or facility without prior authorization by BIS. 8. Section 740.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: § 740.11 Governments, international organizations, and international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention (GOV).

(c)* * *

(3)*Confidentiality.* The application of the provisions of this paragraph

(c)is subject to the condition that the confidentiality of business information is strictly protected in accordance with applicable provisions of the EAR and other U.S. laws regarding the use and transfer of U.S. goods and services. 9. Section 740.17 is amended by revising the second sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 740.17 Encryption commodities and software (ENC).

(a)* * *

(1)* * * Any encryption item produced or developed with an item exported or reexported under this paragraph (a)(1) is subject to the EAR and requires review and authorization before any sale or transfer outside of the private sector end-user that developed it. * * * PART 742—[AMENDED] 10. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 742 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 11. Section 742.15 is amended by revising the second sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as follows: § 742.15 Encryption items.

(b)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)* * * All items produced or developed by U.S. subsidiaries with encryption commodities, software and technology exported under this paragraph are subject to the EAR and require review and authorization before any sale or transfer outside of the U.S. company. PART 744—[AMENDED] 12. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 13. Section 744.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2) to read as follows: § 744.1 General provisions. (a)(1) *Introduction.* In this part, references to the EAR are references to 15 CFR chapter VII, subchapter C. This part contains prohibitions against exports, reexports, and selected transfers to certain end-users and end-uses as introduced under General Prohibition Five (End-use/End-users) and Nine (Orders, Terms, and Conditions), unless authorized by BIS. Sections 744.2, 744.3, 744.4 prohibit exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to defined nuclear, missile, and chemical and biological proliferation activities. Section 744.5 prohibits exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to defined nuclear maritime end-uses. Section 744.6 prohibits certain activities by U.S. persons in support of certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological end-uses. Section 744.7 prohibits exports and reexports of certain items for certain aircraft and vessels. Section 744.9 prohibits U.S. persons from providing technical assistance to certain foreign persons seeking to develop or manufacture certain encryption commodities or software. Section 744.10 prohibits exports and reexports of any item subject to the EAR to Russian entities, included in Supplement No. 4 of this part. Sections 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14 prohibit exports and reexports of any item subject to the EAR to persons designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, Specially Designated Terrorists, or Foreign Terrorist Organizations, respectively. Section 744.19 sets forth BIS's licensing policy for applications for exports or reexports when a party to the transaction is an entity that has been sanctioned pursuant to any of three specified statutes that require certain license applications to be denied. Section 744.20 requires a license, to the extent specified in Supplement No. 4 to this part, for exports and reexports of items subject to the EAR destined to certain sanctioned entities listed in Supplement No. 4 to this part. Section 744.15 describes restrictions on exports and reexports to persons named in general orders. In addition, these sections include license review standards for export license applications submitted as required by these sections. It should also be noted that part 764 of the EAR prohibits exports, reexports and certain transfers of items subject to the EAR to denied parties.

(b)* * *

(2)*Determine applicability.* Second, determine whether any of the end-use and end-user prohibitions described in this part are applicable to your planned export, reexport, transfer (in-country) or other activity. See Supplement No. 1 to part 732 for guidance. For exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) that are in transit at the time you are informed by BIS that a license is required in accordance with §§ 744.2(b), 744.3(b), 744.4(b) or 744.6(b) of the EAR, you may not proceed any further with the transaction unless you first obtain a license from BIS (see part 748 of the EAR for instructions on how to apply for a license). The provisions of § 748.4(d)(2) shall not apply to license applications submitted pursuant to a notification from BIS that occurs while an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is in transit. 14. Section 744.2 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)introductory text and paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 744.2 Restrictions on certain nuclear end-uses.

(a)*General prohibition.* In addition to the license requirements for items specified on the CCL, you may not export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to any destination, other than countries in Supplement No. 3 to this part, an item subject to the EAR without a license if, at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) you know 1 that the item will be used directly or indirectly in any one or more of the following activities described in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section: 1 Part 772 of the EAR defines “knowledge” for all of the EAR except part 760, Restrictive Trade Practices and Boycotts. The definition, which includes variants such as “know” and “reason to know”, encompasses more than positive knowledge. Thus, the use of “know” in this section in place of the former wording “know or have reason to know” does not lessen or otherwise change the responsibilities of persons subject to the EAR.

(a)of this section. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse persons from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph

(a)of this section. 15. Section 744.3 is amended: a. By revising paragraph

(a)introductory text; b. By revising paragraph (b); and c. By revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: § 744.3 Restrictions on certain rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems and space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicles (including cruise missile systems, target drones and reconnaissance drones) end-uses.

(b)*Additional prohibition on persons informed by BIS.* BIS may inform persons, either individually by specific notice or through amendment to the EAR, that a license is required for a specific export, reexport or transfer (in-country) or for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of specified items to a certain end-user, because there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse persons from compliance with the license requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section.

(d)*License review standards.*

(1)Applications to export, reexport or transfer (in-country) the items subject to this section will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) would make a material contribution to the proliferation of certain rocket systems, or unmanned air vehicles. When an export, reexport or transfer (in-country) is deemed to make a material contribution, the license will be denied. 16. Section 744.4 is amended: a. By revising paragraph (a); and b. By revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: § 744.4 Restrictions on certain chemical and biological weapons end-uses.

(a)*General prohibition.* In addition to the license requirements for items specified on the CCL, you may not export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) an item subject to the EAR without a license if, at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) you know that the item will be used in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by any country or destination, worldwide.

(d)*License review standards.*

(1)Applications to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) items subject to this section will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) would make a material contribution to the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons. When an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is deemed to make such a contribution, the license will be denied. 17. Section 744.5 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 744.5 Restrictions on certain maritime nuclear end-uses.

(a)In addition to the license requirements for items specified on the CCL, you may not export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) certain technology subject to the EAR without a license if at the time of the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) you know the item is for use in connection with a foreign maritime nuclear propulsion project. * * * 18. Section 744.6 is amended: a. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) introductory text; b. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii); c. By revising paragraph (a)(3); and d. By revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 744.6 Restrictions on certain activities of U.S. persons.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)No U.S. person as defined in paragraph

(c)of this section may, without a license from BIS, export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) an item where that person knows that such item:

(ii)No U.S. person shall, without a license from BIS, knowingly support an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) that does not have a license as required by this section. Support means any action, including financing, transportation, and freight forwarding, by which a person facilitates an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country).

(2)* * *

(3)Whole plant requirement. No U.S. person shall, without a license from BIS, participate in the design, construction, export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of a whole plant to make chemical weapons precursors identified in ECCN 1C350, in countries other than those listed in Country Group A:3 (Australia Group) (See Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR).

(b)Additional prohibitions on U.S. persons informed by BIS. BIS may inform U.S. persons, either individually by specific notice or through amendment to the EAR, that a license is required because an activity could involve the types of participation and support described in paragraph

(a)of this section. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse the U.S. person from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph

(a)of this section. PART 748—[AMENDED] 19. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 20. Supplement No. 2 to part 748 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: Supplement No. 2 to Part 748—Unique Application and Submission Requirements

(c)* * *

(2)Security Safeguard Plan requirement. The United States requires security safeguards for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of High Performance Computers

(HPCs)to ensure that they are used for peaceful purposes. If you are submitting a license application for an export, reexport, or in-country transfer of a high performance computer to or within a destination in Computer Tier 3 (see § 740.7(c)(1) of the EAR) or to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria you must include with your license application a security safeguard plan signed by the end-user, who may also be the ultimate consignee. This requirement also applies to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of components or electronic assemblies to upgrade existing “computer” installations in those countries. A sample security safeguard plan is posted on BIS's Web page at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/hpcs/SecuritySafeguardPlans.html.* PART 752—[AMENDED] 21. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 752 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 22. Section 752.5 is amended by revising the undesignated paragraph at the end of (c)(8)(ii) to read as follows: § 752.5 Steps you must follow to apply for an SCL.

(c)* * *

(8)* * *

(ii)* * * No chemicals or chemical equipment received under this Special Comprehensive License will be transferred, resold, or reexported to a destination or end-user that requires a license, unless the new end-user has been approved by the Bureau of Industry and Security, and in no case will the items be transferred, resold, or reexported to a party who is not the end-user. 23. Section 752.8 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 752.8 SCL application review process.

(a)* * * In reviewing and approving a specific SCL request, BIS retains the right to limit the eligibility of items or to prohibit the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items under the SCL to specific firms, individuals, or countries. 24. Section 752.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as follows: § 752.16 Administrative actions. (a)(1) * * *

(v)Require that certain exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) be individually authorized by BIS; 25. Supplement No. 3 to part 752 is amended by revising Block

(8)paragraph

(iv)to read as follows: Supplement No. 3 to Part 752—Instructions on Completing Form BIS-752 “Statement by Consignee in Support of Special Comprehensive License” Block 8: Disposition or Use of Items.

(iv)Item (d): Complete this Block if your company plans to transfer or resell within the country of import. State the end-use of your customers. If you plan to transfer to end-users that require prior approval by BIS, complete and attach Form BIS-748P-B, End-User Appendix. PART 760—[AMENDED] 26. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 760 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 27. Section 760.1 is amended by revising the first and second sentences of paragraph (b)(4)(viii) to read as follows: § 760.1 Definitions.

(b)* * *

(4)* * *

(viii)At the request of country Y, A, an individual employed by U.S. company B, is assigned to company C as an employee. C is a foreign company owned and controlled by country Y. A, a U.S. national who will reside in Y, has agreed to the assignment provided he is able to retain his insurance, pension, and other benefits. * * * 28. Section 760.3 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(4)(i) to read as follows: § 760.3 Exceptions to prohibitions.

(f)* * *

(4)* * *

(i)A, a U.S. individual employed by B, a U.S. manufacturer of sporting goods with a plant in boycotting country Y, wishes to obtain a work visa so that he may be assigned to the plant in Y. * * * PART 772—[AMENDED] 29. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 772 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 30. Section 772.1 is amended by revising the definition of “transfer.” § 772.1 Definitions of terms as used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). *Transfer.* A shipment, transmission, or release to any person of items subject to the EAR either within the United States or outside the United States.

(a)*In-country transfer/transfer (in-country).* The shipment, transmission, or release of items subject to the EAR from one person to another person that occurs outside the United States within a single foreign country.

(b)Reserved. Note to the definition of transfer : This definition of transfer does not apply to § 750.10 or Supplement No. 8 to part 760 of the EAR. The term “transfer” may also be included on licenses issued by BIS. In that regard, the changes that can be made to a BIS license are the non-material changes described in § 750.7(c). Any other change to a BIS license without authorization is a violation of the EAR. See §§ 750.7(c) and 764.2(e). Dated: April 9, 2008. Matthew S. Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8197 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 28 [OAG 119; AG Order No. 2957-2008] RIN 1105-AB24 DNA-Sample Collection Under the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is publishing this proposed rule to implement amendments made by section 1004 of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and section 155 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. This rule directs agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals, or that supervise individuals facing charges, to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, the collection of DNA samples may be limited to individuals from whom an agency collects fingerprints. The Attorney General also may approve other limitations or exceptions. Agencies collecting DNA samples are directed to furnish the samples to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or to other agencies or entities as authorized by the Attorney General, for purposes of analysis and entry into the Combined DNA Index System. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509, Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference OAG Docket No. 119 on your correspondence. You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of this proposed rule at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy. Telephone:

(202)514-3273. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . If you wish to submit a comment, the public posting will include voluntarily submitted personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.). If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted. If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must identify prominently any confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be redacted effectively, all or part of that comment might not be posted on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph. Background All 50 States authorize the collection and analysis of DNA samples from convicted state offenders, and enter resulting DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14132. In addition to collecting DNA samples from convicted state offenders, several states authorize the collection of DNA samples from individuals they arrest. Until recently, federal DNA-sample collection was more limited. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the “Act”) authorized DNA-sample collection by federal agencies only from persons convicted of certain “qualifying” federal, military, and District of Columbia offenses. Public Law 106-546 (2000). The Act also addressed the responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and federal probation offices to collect DNA samples from convicted offenders in their custody or under their supervision, and the responsibility of the FBI to analyze and index DNA samples. On June 28, 2001, the Department of Justice published an interim rule to implement these provisions. 66 FR 34363. The rule, in part, specified the qualifying federal offenses for which DNA samples could be collected and addressed responsibilities of BOP and the FBI under the Act. After publication of the interim rule, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56. Section 503 of the USA PATRIOT Act added three additional categories of qualifying federal offenses for purposes of DNA-sample collection:

(1)Any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code;

(2)any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); and

(3)any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offenses. The Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2003, to implement this expanded DNA-sample collection authority. 68 FR 11481. On December 29, 2003, the Department published a final rule implementing this authority. 68 FR 74855. After publication of that final rule, the DNA-sample collection categories again were expanded by Congress pursuant to section 203(b) of the Justice for All Act of 2004, Public Law 108-405. The Justice for All Act expanded the definition of qualifying federal offenses to include any felony, thereby permitting the collection of DNA samples from all convicted federal felons. The Department published an interim final rule implementing this reform on January 31, 2005. 70 FR 4763. More recently, section 1004 of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 (“DNA Fingerprint Act”), Public Law 109-162, broadened the categories of persons subject to DNA-sample collection to authorize such collection from “individuals who are arrested or from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.” Before publication of a rule implementing this new authority, the DNA-sample collection provisions were amended further by section 155 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act”), Public Law 109-248. The amendments made by that Act left the statute in its current form: “The Attorney General may, as prescribed by the Attorney General in regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted or from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A). This statute also provides that the Attorney General may “direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.” *Id* . Purposes DNA analysis provides a powerful tool for human identification. DNA samples collected from individuals or derived from crime scene evidence are analyzed to produce DNA profiles that are entered into CODIS. These DNA profiles, which embody information concerning 13 “core loci,” amount to “genetic fingerprints” that can be used to identify an individual uniquely, but do not disclose an individual's traits, disorders, or dispositions. *See United States* v. *Kincade,* 379 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); *Johnson* v. *Quander,* 440 F.3d 489, 498 (DC Cir. 2006). Hence, collection of DNA samples and entry of the resulting profiles into CODIS allow the government to “ascertain[] and record[] the identity of a person.” *Jones* v. *Murray,* 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992). The design and legal rules governing the operation of CODIS reflect the system's function as a tool for law enforcement identification, and do not allow DNA samples or profiles within the scope of the system to be used for unauthorized purposes. *See* 42 U.S.C. 14132, 14133(b)-(c), 14135e. The practical uses of the DNA profiles (“genetic fingerprints”) in CODIS are similar in general character to those of actual fingerprints, but the collection of DNA from individuals in the justice system offers important information that is not captured by taking fingerprints alone. Positive biometric identification, whether by means of fingerprints or by means of DNA profiles, facilitates the solution of crimes through database searches that match crime scene evidence to the biometric information that has been collected from individuals. Solving crimes by this means furthers the fundamental objectives of the criminal justice system, helping to bring the guilty to justice and protect the innocent, who might otherwise be wrongly suspected or accused, through the prompt and certain identification of the actual perpetrators. DNA analysis offers a critical complement to fingerprint analysis in the many cases in which perpetrators of crimes leave no recoverable fingerprints but leave biological residues at the crime scene. Hence, there is a vast class of crimes that can be solved through DNA matching that could not be solved in any comparable manner (or could not be solved at all) if the biometric identification information collected from individuals were limited to fingerprints. In addition, as with taking fingerprints, collecting DNA samples at the time of arrest or at another early stage in the criminal justice process can prevent and deter subsequent criminal conduct—a benefit that may be lost if law enforcement agencies wait until conviction to collect DNA. Indeed, recognition of the added value of early DNA-sample collection in solving and preventing murders, rapes, and other crimes was a specific motivation for the enactment of the legislation that this rule implements. *See* 151 Cong. Rec. S13756-58 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 2005) (remarks of Sen. Kyl, sponsor of the DNA Identification Act) (explaining the value of including all arrestees in the DNA database). Moreover, in relation to aliens who are illegally present in the United States and detained pending removal, prompt DNA-sample collection could be essential to the detection and solution of crimes they may have committed or may commit in the United States. Since in most cases such aliens are not prosecuted for their immigration offenses, there is usually no later opportunity to collect a DNA sample premised on a criminal conviction. Hence, the individual's detention pending removal constitutes a unique opportunity to obtain this critical biometric information—and by that means to solve and hold the individual accountable for any crimes committed in the United States—before the individual's removal from the United States places him or her beyond the ready reach of the United States justice system. As with fingerprints, the collection of DNA samples at or near the time of arrest also can serve purposes relating directly to the arrest and ensuing proceedings. For example, analysis and database matching of a DNA sample collected from an arrestee may show that the arrestee's DNA matches DNA found in crime scene evidence from a murder, rape, or other serious crime. Such information helps authorities to assess whether an individual may be released safely to the public pending trial and to establish appropriate conditions for his release, or to ensure proper security measures in the case of his continued detention. The collection of a DNA sample may also provide an alternative means of directly ascertaining or verifying an arrestee's identity, where fingerprint records are unavailable, incomplete, or inconclusive. Hence, conducted incident to arrest, DNA-sample collection offers a legitimate means to obtain valuable information regarding the arrestee. *See Anderson* v. *Virginia,* 650 S.E.2d 702, 706

(2006)(upholding a state statute authorizing DNA-sample collection from arrestees based on “the legitimate interest of the government in knowing for an absolute certainty the identity of the person arrested, in knowing whether he is wanted elsewhere, and in ensuring his identification in the event he flees prosecution” (internal citation omitted)). In sum, this rule implements new statutory authority that will further the government's legitimate interest in proper identification of persons “lawfully confined to prison” or “arrested upon probable cause.” *Jones,* 962 F.2d at 306. By expanding CODIS pursuant to statutory authority to include persons arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and non-United States persons detained, this rule enhances the accuracy and efficacy of the United States criminal justice system. Practical Implementation The rule allows DNA samples generally to be collected, along with a subject's fingerprints, as part of the identification process. As discussed above, the uses of DNA for law enforcement identification purposes are similar in general character to the uses of fingerprints, and these uses will be greatly enhanced as a practical matter if DNA is collected regularly in addition to fingerprints. Law enforcement agencies routinely collect fingerprints from individuals whom they arrest. *See Anderson,* 650 S.E.2d at 706 (“Fingerprinting an arrested suspect has long been considered a part of the routine booking process.”); *Kincade,* 379 F.3d at 836 n.31 (“[E]veryday ‘booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence.”); *Jones,* 962 F.2d at 306 (noting “universal approbation of ‘booking' procedures * * * whether or not the proof of a particular suspect's crime will involve the use of fingerprint identification”). In addition, agencies that detain non-United States persons ( *i.e.* , persons who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents), 1 such as the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), often collect fingerprints from such individuals. 1 Defining the scope of “non-United States persons” to mean persons who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents follows the common understanding of this term in other provisions of law. *See, e.g.* , 10 U.S.C. 2241 note, Pub. L. 108-7, div. M, § 111(e)(2)-(3), Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 536 (defining “non-United States person” as “any person other than a United States person” and “United States person” in the manner set forth in 50 U.S.C. 1801(i)); 50 U.S.C. 1801(i) (defining “United States person,” in relation to individuals, as “a citizen of the United States * * * [or] an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence”). Accordingly, the Attorney General is directing all agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals or supervise individuals facing charges to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A), if the agency takes fingerprints from such individuals. The Department recognizes, however, that there may be some circumstances in which agencies collect fingerprints but in which the collection of DNA samples would not be warranted or feasible. For example, in relation to non-arrestees, DHS will not be required to collect DNA samples from aliens who are fingerprinted in processing for lawful admission to the United States, or from aliens from whom DNA-sample collection is otherwise not feasible because of operational exigencies or resource limitations. If any agency believes that such circumstances exist within its sphere of operations, the agency should bring these circumstances to the attention of the Department, and exceptions to the DNA-sample collection requirement may be allowed with the approval of the Attorney General. The Department also recognizes that some federal agencies exercising law enforcement authority do not collect fingerprints routinely from all individuals at a stage comparable to the arrest phase. For example, military personnel involved in court martial proceedings may not be fingerprinted because their fingerprints already are on file. In addition, persons facing federal charges in the District of Columbia may not be fingerprinted by any federal agency if they are fingerprinted by the Metropolitan Police Department. Nonetheless, the collection of DNA samples from such individuals serves the same purposes, and is warranted to the same degree, as DNA-sample collection from other federal arrestees and defendants. Therefore, if directed by the Attorney General, certain agencies will be required to collect DNA samples from individuals from whom they would not otherwise collect fingerprints. Agencies will be authorized to enter into agreements with other federal agencies, with state and local governments, and with private entities to carry out the required DNA-sample collection. Agencies that arrest, detain, or supervise individuals will not be required to duplicate DNA-sample collection if arrangements have been made to have the collection done by another authorized agency or entity, but will be responsible for ensuring that the DNA samples are collected and submitted for analysis and entry into CODIS. For example, an agency that arrests and fingerprints an individual and then transfers the individual to another agency (such as the United States Marshals Service) for detention cannot transfer responsibility for DNA-sample collection to the detention agency unless that agency agrees to assume responsibility for that function. The Department of Justice understands that agencies will need to revise their current procedures in order to implement these new DNA-sample collection requirements. In addition, sample-collection kits will need to be distributed to the agencies and agency personnel will need to be trained in the proper collection techniques. Therefore, although the Attorney General is directing all agencies to implement DNA-sample collection as soon as feasible, agencies not able to collect samples from all covered individuals immediately may phase in their DNA-sample collection activities as resources allow. Agencies must implement fully their collection programs by December 31, 2008. However, if sample-collection kits authorized by the Attorney General have not been made available to an agency in sufficient numbers to allow collection of DNA samples from all covered individuals, the Attorney General will grant an exception allowing the agency to limit its DNA-sample collection program to the extent necessary. The collection of DNA samples by agencies will be performed in accordance with procedures and standards established by the Attorney General. Under the pre-existing DNA-sample collection program for federal convicts, BOP and federal probation offices have taken blood samples for this purpose, utilizing sample-collection kits provided by the FBI. In earlier stages of the program, these samples generally were obtained through venipuncture (blood drawn from the arm), but currently the FBI provides kits that allow a blood sample to be collected by means of a finger prick. However, the states that collect DNA samples from arrestees typically do so by swabbing the inside of the person's mouth (“buccal swab”), and many states use the same method to collect DNA samples from convicts. Therefore, although even blood tests “are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examinations and experience with them teaches * * * that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain,” *Schmerber* v. *California,* 384 U.S. 757, 771

(1966)(footnote omitted), the rule permits and facilitates the use of buccal swabs to collect DNA samples. Revisions to Existing Regulations The proposed rule would revise a section of the existing regulations, 28 CFR 28.12, to reflect the expansion of DNA-sample collection to include persons arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and non-United States persons detained under the authority of the United States. Section 28.12, in paragraph (a), is revised to require BOP to collect DNA samples from all federal (including military) convicts in its custody, as well as from individuals convicted of qualifying District of Columbia offenses. The expansion of DNA-sample collection to include all federal or military convicts in BOP custody, whether or not they fall within the previously covered categories of persons convicted of qualifying federal or military offenses, is based on the Attorney General's authority under 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A). The requirement for BOP to collect samples from individuals convicted of qualifying District of Columbia offenses appears in 42 U.S.C. 14135b(a)(1). A new paragraph

(b)will be inserted in section 28.12 to implement the new authority to collect DNA samples from federal arrestees, defendants, and detainees. As discussed above, agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals or supervise individuals facing charges will be required to collect DNA samples if they collect fingerprints from such individuals, subject to any limitations or exceptions the Attorney General may approve. This paragraph also specifies certain categories of aliens from whom DHS will not be required to collect DNA samples, even if DHS collects fingerprints. A new paragraph

(c)is added that specifies a time frame for the implementation of the expanded DNA-sample collection program. Current paragraph

(c)is redesignated as paragraph

(d)and is revised to reflect the expansion of the categories of individuals from whom DNA samples will be collected and the agencies that conduct DNA-sample collection. *See* 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A), 14135a(a)(4)(A). The current version of that paragraph only refers to the collection of DNA samples from persons convicted of qualifying offenses by BOP. A new paragraph (e), replacing current paragraphs

(b)and (d), provides in part that agencies required to collect DNA samples under the section may enter into agreements with other federal agencies, in addition to units of state or local governments or private entities, to carry out DNA-sample collection. The authority to make such arrangements with state and local governments and with private entities is explicit in 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(4)(B), and the Attorney General is delegating this authority to other federal agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A). The latter provision (42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A)) also sufficiently supports allowing such arrangements between federal agencies, since it authorizes the Attorney General to delegate DNA-sample collection to any Department of Justice component and to any other federal agency that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges. The new paragraph

(e)also identifies three circumstances in which an agency need not collect a sample. The first is when arrangements have been made for some other agency or entity to collect the sample under that paragraph. The second is when CODIS already contains a DNA profile for the individual, an exception expressly authorized by 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(3). The third is when waiver of DNA-sample collection in favor of collection by another agency is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(3) or 10 U.S.C. 1565(a)(2), statutes that provide that BOP and the Department of Defense need not duplicate DNA-sample collection with respect to military offenders. Current paragraph

(e)is redesignated as paragraph

(f)and is revised to require agencies subject to the rule to carry out DNA-sample collection utilizing buccal-swab collection kits provided by the Attorney General or other means authorized by the Attorney General. The samples then must be sent to the FBI, or to another agency or entity authorized by the Attorney General, for purposes of analysis and indexing in CODIS. This paragraph also is amended to require taking of another sample if the original sample is flawed and hence cannot be analyzed to derive a DNA profile that satisfies the requirements for entry into CODIS. A new paragraph

(g)is added to clarify that the authorization of DNA-sample collection under this rule pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act does not limit DNA-sample collection by an agency pursuant to any other authority. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The regulation concerns the collection, analysis, and indexing by federal agencies of DNA samples from certain individuals. *See* 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, § 1(b) (“The Principles of Regulation”). The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, § 3(f), and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The cost of buccal swab kits is expected to be similar to the cost of finger-prick kits, which the FBI has provided in the existing program for the collection of DNA samples from federal convicts. Resulting per-sample analysis and storage costs also are expected to be similar. A finger-prick DNA-sample collection kit costs approximately $7.50, and it costs the FBI approximately $28.50 to analyze the DNA sample and $1.50 to store the sample (for a total of $37.50). The individuals from whom DNA-sample collection is authorized under the proposed rule, not covered by previous law and practice, generally fall into two broad categories:

(1)Persons arrested for or charged with (but not yet convicted of) federal crimes; and

(2)illegal aliens arrested or detained by DHS. According to the Department of Justice's 2004 Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, over 140,000 suspects were arrested for federal offenses in fiscal year 2004. *See* Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2004, *available at http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cfjs04.htm,* at 1, 13, & 18. According to the DHS 2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 1,206,457 aliens were apprehended. Based on these figures, the Department estimates that on an annual basis the number of individuals from whom DNA-sample collection is authorized under this rule will be approximately 1.2 million. The actual number of individuals from whom DNA samples are collected will be less to the extent that the Attorney General grants exceptions or the Secretary of Homeland Security exercises his discretion to limit DNA-sample collection in accordance with proposed 28 CFR 28.12(b), and to the extent that individuals entering the system through arrest or detention previously have had DNA samples collected and repetitive collection is not required. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. *See* 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 28 Crime, Information, Law enforcement, Prisoners, Prisons, Probation and parole, Records. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR part 28 as follows: PART 28—DNA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 28 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 14132, 14135a, 14135b; 10 U.S.C. 1565; Public Law 106-546, 114 Stat. 2726; Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272; Public Law 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260; Public Law 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960; Pub. L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. 2. Section 28.12 is revised to read as follows: § 28.12 Collection of DNA samples.

(a)The Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who is, or has been, convicted of—

(1)A Federal offense (including any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice); or

(2)A qualifying District of Columbia offense, as determined under section 4(d) of Public Law 106-546.

(b)Any agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges shall collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, “non-United States persons” means persons who are not United States citizens and who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence as defined in 8 CFR 1.1(p). Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, the collection of DNA samples under this paragraph may be limited to individuals from whom the agency collects fingerprints and may be subject to other limitations or exceptions approved by the Attorney General. The DNA-sample collection requirements for the Department of Homeland Security in relation to non-arrestees do not include, except to the extent provided by the Secretary of Homeland Security, collecting DNA samples from:

(1)Aliens lawfully in, or being processed for lawful admission to, the United States;

(2)Aliens held at a port of entry during consideration of admissibility and not subject to further detention or proceedings;

(3)Aliens held in connection with maritime interdiction; or

(4)Other aliens with respect to whom the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, determines that the collection of DNA samples is not feasible because of operational exigencies or resource limitations.

(c)The DNA-sample collection requirements under this section shall be implemented by each agency as soon as feasible, and in any event shall be implemented fully by each agency no later than December 31, 2008.

(d)Each individual described in paragraph

(a)or

(b)of this section shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from that individual. Agencies required to collect DNA samples under this section may use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual described in paragraph

(a)or

(b)who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample.

(e)Agencies required to collect DNA samples under this section may enter into agreements with other agencies described in paragraph

(a)or

(b)of this section, with units of state or local governments, and with private entities to carry out the collection of DNA samples. An agency may, but need not, collect a DNA sample from an individual if—

(1)Another agency or entity has collected, or will collect, a DNA sample from that individual pursuant to an agreement under this paragraph;

(2)The Combined DNA Index System already contains a DNA analysis with respect to that individual; or

(3)Waiver of DNA-sample collection in favor of collection by another agency is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(3) or 10 U.S.C. 1565(a)(2).

(f)Each agency required to collect DNA samples under this section shall—

(1)Carry out DNA-sample collection utilizing sample-collection kits provided or other means authorized by the Attorney General, including approved methods of blood draws or buccal swabs;

(2)Furnish each DNA sample collected under this section to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or to another agency or entity as authorized by the Attorney General, for purposes of analysis and entry of the results of the analysis into the Combined DNA Index System; and

(3)Repeat DNA-sample collection from an individual who remains or becomes again subject to the agency's jurisdiction or control if informed that a sample collected from the individual does not satisfy the requirements for analysis or for entry of the results of the analysis into the Combined DNA Index System.

(g)The authorization of DNA-sample collection by this section pursuant to Public Law 106-546 does not limit DNA-sample collection by any agency pursuant to any other authority. Dated: April 11, 2008. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General. [FR Doc. E8-8339 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-19-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 930 [SATS No. ND-050-FOR; Docket ID OSM-2008-0004; North Dakota Amendment No. XXXVIII] North Dakota Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory program (hereinafter, the North Dakota program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). North Dakota proposes revisions to rules that would change self-bonding requirements, update terminology used for describing native grasslands, and correct a cross reference error. At its own initiative, it intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency. This document gives the times and locations that the North Dakota program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., m.d.t. May 19, 2008. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on May 13, 2008. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., m.d.t. on May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “SATS No. ND-050-FOR” and/or Docket ID OSM-2008-0004” by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* [ *JFleischman@osmre.gov* ]. Include OSM-2008-0004 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:* Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building, 150 East B Street, Room 1018, Casper, Wyoming 82601-1018, 307/261-6550, *JFleischman@osmre.gov.* • *Fax:* 307/261-6552. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2008-0004. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to *www.regulations.gov* and do the following. Click on the “Advanced Docket Search” button on the right side of the screen. Type in Docket ID OSM-2008-0004 and click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. The next screen will display Docket Search Results for the rulemaking. If you click on OSM-2008-0004 you can view the proposed rule and submit a comment. You can also view supporting material and any comments submitted by others. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and OSM-2008-0004. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* In addition to viewing the Docket and obtaining copies of documents at *http://www.regulations.gov,* you may also review copies of the North Dakota program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM's) Casper Field Office. Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building, 150 East B Street, Room 1018, Casper, Wyoming 82601-1018, 307/261-6550, *JFleischman@osmre.gov* James R. Deutsch, North Dakota Public Service Commission, Capitol Building, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505, *Tel:* 701-328-2251, *E-mail: jrd@oracle.psc.state.nd.us* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Telephone: 307-261-6550. Internet: *JFleischman@osmre.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the North Dakota Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the North Dakota Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the North Dakota program on December 15, 1980. You can find background information on the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the North Dakota program in the December 15, 1980 **Federal Register** (45 FR 82214). You can also find later actions concerning North Dakota's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 934.15, and 934.30. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated March 12, 2008, North Dakota sent us a proposed amendment (Amendment number North Dakota XXXVIII) to its program, under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . Specifically, North Dakota proposes to:

(1)Revise its self bonding provisions under North Dakota Administrative Code

(NDAC)Article 69-5.2-12-05.1 to allow the North Dakota Public Service Commission to accept bond ratings from other nationally recognized rating organizations in addition to Moody's Investors Service and Standards and Poor's ratings, for companies that guarantee self bonds;

(2)update, under NDAC 69-05.2-08-08, premine land use and vegetation requirements, and some terminology used for native grassland descriptions to reflect what is used by USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service; and

(3)correct a cross reference error in NDAC 69-05.2-10-03. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the North Dakota program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your written comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Casper Field Office, or *http://www.regulations.gov,* may not be logged in. 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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t. on May 5, 2008. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak have been heard. Public Meeting If there is only limited interest in participating in a public hearing, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the Federal regulations. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulations were not considered major. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded Mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulations did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 930 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: April 2, 2008. Billie E. Clark, Acting Regional Director, Western Region. [FR Doc. E8-8408 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0207] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD and Alexandria, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. This action is necessary to finalize construction of the drawbridge. While construction continues, this proposal would allow the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. beginning May 31, 2008 until and including March 1, 2009. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard by June 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0207 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

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

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

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

(4)Fax: 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6222. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0207), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0207) in the Search box, and click “Go>>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 233704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting Currently, no public meeting is scheduled. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On March 5, 2008, we published a notice of temporary deviation from the regulations entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 13127). The Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation, co-owners of the drawbridge, requested an extension of the aforementioned temporary deviation for a longer period of time in an effort to minimize the potential for major regional traffic impacts and consequences during bridge openings while construction continues. Bridge owners requested that the drawbridge not be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Saturday, May 31, 2008 through Sunday, March 1, 2009 or until the bridge is properly commissioned, whichever comes first. Construction will continue during this time period and the normal vehicular traffic pattern with five lanes operating in each direction is not anticipated until near the end of the time period. From a river-user standpoint, the coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project have received no requests from boaters or mariners to open during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. timeframe since the first temporary deviation was issued in late June 2006. In fact, no requests have been received for an opening of the new bridge at all since July 3, 2006. Finally, the coordinators have received no complaints on the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. restriction. This proposal will affect only vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or greater. Furthermore, all operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a). Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend the operating regulations at 33 CFR § 117.255 by inserting new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) to read as follows: From May 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, at mile 103.8, between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland, need not be opened. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. All operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a), and mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, all operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a), and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,

(757)398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.,* specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. From May 31, 2008, to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., in § 117.255 add new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) to read as follows: § 117.255 Potomac River. (a)(2)(iii) From May 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw need not to be opened. (a)(4)(iv) From May 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw need not be opened. Dated: April 7, 2008. Fred M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-8514 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 RIN 3014-AA22 Emergency Transportable Housing Advisory Committee AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established an advisory committee to make recommendations for possible revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA)and Architectural Barriers Act

(ABA)Accessibility Guidelines to include provisions for emergency transportable housing. This notice announces the dates and times of upcoming committee conference calls. DATES: The conference calls are scheduled for May 16, 2008; May 29, 2008; July 9, 2008; and July 28, 2008. All calls will begin at 10 a.m. and will conclude no later than 2 p.m. (Eastern time). ADDRESSES: Individuals can participate in the conference calls by dialing a teleconference number which will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at *http://www.access-board.gov/eth/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha Mazz, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number

(202)272-0020 (Voice);

(202)272-0082 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail address: *mazz@access-board.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2007, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established an advisory committee to make recommendations for possible revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA)and Architectural Barriers Act

(ABA)Accessibility Guidelines to include provisions for emergency transportable housing (72 FR 48251; August 23, 2007). The committee will hold conference calls on May 16, 2008, May 29, 2008, July 9, 2008, and July 28, 2008 to discuss a variety of outstanding issues yet to be resolved. Information about the committee, and the agenda, instructions (including information on captioning), and dial in telephone numbers for the conference calls are available at *http://www.access-board.gov/eth/* . The conference calls are open to the public and interested persons can dial in and communicate their views during a public comment period scheduled during each conference call. Participants may call in from any location of their choosing. The committee may cancel one or more of the conference calls depending on the needs of the committee and its progress in discussing and resolving outstanding issues. If a conference call is canceled, a notice will be posted at *http://www.access-board.gov/eth/* . Persons wishing to provide handouts or other written information to the committee are requested to provide them in an electronic format to Marsha Mazz preferably by e-mail so that alternate formats such as large print can be distributed to committee members. Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-8420 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 232 [Docket No. FRA-2006-26175, Notice No. 3] RIN 2130-AB84 Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake Systems AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Proposed rule; partial reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This document announces an additional 15-day period to file comments in this proceeding. This extension provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on recently revised or new standards developed by the Association of American Railroads

(AAR)that are related to the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)in this proceeding. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 5, 2008. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expenses or delays. ADDRESSES: *Comments:* Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2006-26175, may be submitted by any of the following methods: 1. *Web site:* Comments should be filed at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the Web site's online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *Fax:* 202-493-2251. 3. *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. 4. *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* including any personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted comments or materials. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or to Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wilson, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Motive Power and Equipment Division, RRS-14, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6259); or Jason Schlosberg, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6032). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On September 4, 2007, FRA published in the **Federal Register** an NPRM seeking comments on proposed rules relating to the implementation and use of electronically controlled pneumatic

(ECP)brake systems on freight trains and freight cars. *See* 72 FR 50820. The NPRM proposed incorporation by reference of existing AAR *Standards and Recommended Practices* related to ECP brake systems. At the time FRA published the NPRM, those standards, collectively known as the AAR S-4200 Series Standards, included the following:

(1)AAR S-4200, ECP Cable-Based Brake Systems—Performance Requirements (2004);

(2)AAR S-4210, ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable, Connectors, and Junction Boxes—Performance Specifications (2002);

(3)AAR S-4220, ECP Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply—Performance Specification (2002);

(4)AAR S-4230, Intratrain Communication

(ITC)Specification for Cable-Based Freight Train Control System (2004);

(5)AAR S-4250, Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled Cable-Based Distributed Power Systems (2004); and

(6)AAR S-4260, ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power Interoperability Test Procedures (2007). In the NPRM, FRA noted that the AAR S-4200 Series do not provide requirements for hardware and software configuration management plans and acknowledged that AAR was in the process of developing standards related to ECP brake system configuration management. The NPRM further noted that if a configuration management standard were to be adopted and published by the AAR subsequent to the closing of the NPRM's comment period, FRA would consider other forums for receiving comments, including, but not limited to, issuing a supplemental notice informing interested parties of the standard's availability. Subsequent to the closing of the comment period in this proceeding, AAR made changes to the S-4200 Series Standards by modifying individual standards S-4200 and S-4210 and by proposing a new standard S-4270. FRA has preliminarily reviewed these changes and notes that they are in each case either

(i)more protective of safety or

(ii)safety neutral but designed to make ECP brake systems more practical for field application. Accordingly, FRA presents the proposed changes for comment with a view toward potential incorporation in the final rule. After a period for comment by AAR members, AAR published a revised S-4200 standard and postponed the implementation date from February 16, 2008, to June 1, 2008. *See* AAR Circular Letters C-10686 and C-10697; AAR Standard S-4200 (2008). AAR Circular Letter C-10686 summarized the changes to the S-4200 standard as follows: Section 4.2.2.1 Description of Setup: This section was revised to limit changes of the empty/load setting to changes of E/L from empty to loaded only. Section 4.2.2.2.4 Empty/Load: A sentence was added to stipulate that the engineer shall not be allowed to change the train's empty/load setting from loaded to empty while the train is in motion. Section 4.2.2.2.4.1 Empty Load Selection While the Train is Enroute: A sentence was revised to require that the train be stopped with a full service brake application or a full service brake application must have been commanded for at least 2 minutes in order to change the train's empty/load setting from loaded to empty. Section 4.2.2.2.5 Train Net Braking Ratio: This section was revised to require that, if the OEM provides the optional ability to change the train NBR, the engineer will not be given the opportunity to change the setting. Section 4.2.2.2.6 Configuration Confirmation: Empty/load value was added to brake pipe pressure setpoint for which the HEU shall display the entered values and request a confirmation from the engineer. Section 4.3.12 Mechanical Brake Cylinder and Reservoir Venting: This section was revised to require a means to manually vent pressure from the brake cylinder and reservoir at every CCD location from both sides of the car without reliance on electronic activation or control. Note 1 has been revised to require that the brake cylinder release valve be capable of releasing air pressure from all brake cylinders; regardless of the charge status of the brake pipe. Note 3 is new. Note 4 is old Note 3 revised. Note 6 is old Note 7 revised. Note 7 is new (pneumatic backup functionality when brake cylinder release valve has been activated) Section 4.4.2.1.1.1 Recovering from a Missed EOT Beacon Fault: A sentence has been added requiring re-initialization of the train if the EOT beacon is lost for more than 15 seconds while in RUN mode. Section 4.4.16 Recovery from Emergency, Fault-Induced, or Penalty Brake Applications: When recovering from an emergency brake application, the operator will position the brake lever to 100% brake application to release the interlock. Section 6.0 Approval Procedure: This detailed section has been replaced with a cross reference to AAR Standard S-4240 (adopted January 16, 2007, Circular Letter c-10454). After a period for comment by AAR members, AAR also issued revisions to its S-4210 standard. *See* AAR Circular Letter C-10650; AAR Standard S-4210 (2007). While the standard was apparently implemented in November 2007, its accompanying AAR Circular Letter C-10650 was issued on December 6, 2007. AAR Circular Letter C-10650 summarized the changes to the S-4210 standard as follows: Section 3.1 General Characteristics: The overall outside dimension of the cable was changed from 0.70 inch minimum/0.75 inch maximum to 0.675 inch minimum/0.725 inch maximum. Section 6.0 CONNECTOR ASSEMBLIES: This revised section covers the intercar connector, cable, strength member (lanyard), and car body junction box plug connector. Section 7.0 INTERCAR CONNECTOR PERFORMANCE AND TESTING DESCRIPTIONS: This section has been significantly expanded. Section 8.0 This is a new section with a TESTING SEQUENCE: Section 9.0 CAR BODY CONNECTIONS: The car body connector mounting envelope has been clarified and expanded with a figure added. Figures for the various end air hose mounting arrangements and brackets have been added. The length of the entire connector assembly would be revised to 36 inches + or − 1 inch for conventional cars versus 40 inches now. AAR has also proposed a new standard S-4270 to address ECP brake system configuration management plans. According to AAR Circular Letter C-10750, this specification describes how the industry will control and track hardware and software changes to the ECP equipped interchange car fleet. AAR is currently seeking comment on proposed standard S-4270. To ensure that the final rule in this proceeding does not rely on outdated information or technical standards, FRA is proposing to replace the NPRM's references to S-4200 and S-4210 with the aforementioned updated versions of those standards. Parties may be reluctant to adopt technology whose standards may be soon outdated or obsolete. Thus, implementation of a final rule relying on outdated standards or procedures may further delay the proliferation, implementation, and use of ECP brake systems. For these same reasons, FRA also seeks comments on the proposed draft standard S-4270. In the NPRM, FRA proposed the incorporation by reference of standard S-4270 if the standard was adopted by AAR prior to the date necessary for its inclusion in the final rule. However, FRA will not include S-4270 in the final rule if substantial changes are made from the current draft or AAR's adoption of S-4270 is not complete in the near future. Accordingly, FRA is hereby reopening and extending the comment period in this proceeding for an additional 15 days from the date of this notice. During this additional comment period, FRA is seeking comments solely on the updated versions of S-4200 and S-4210 and the new standard S-4270, subject to the caveats explained above. FRA will not consider comments relating to any issues outside of this narrow scope. FRA has placed the revised and new standards and their concomitant circular letters referenced herein in the public docket to this proceeding. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at *http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html* . Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2008. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-8432 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P 73 76 Friday, April 18, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 14, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

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

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

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

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

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* 7 CFR part 3565, “Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program” and its Supporting Handbook. *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0174. *Summary of Collection:* On March 26, 1996, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 was signed. One of the provisions of the Act was the authorization of the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP), adding the program to the Housing Act of 1949. The purpose of the GRRHP is to increase the supply of affordable rural rental housing through the use of loan guarantees that encourage partnerships between the Rural Housing Service (RHS), private lenders and public agencies. RUS will approve qualified lenders to participate and monitor lender performance to ensure program requirements are met. RHS will collect information from lenders on the eligibility cost, benefits, feasibility, and financial performance of the proposed project. *Need and Use of the Information:* RHS will collect information from lenders to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for Government resources and from time to time, propose demonstration programs that use loan guarantees or interest credit. The GRRHP regulation and handbook will provide lenders and agency staff with guidance on the origination and servicing of GRRHP loans and the approval of qualified lenders. RHS will use the information to evaluate a lender's request and make determination that the interests of the government are protected. Failure to collect information could have an adverse impact on the agency ability to monitor lenders and assess program effectiveness and effectively guarantee loans. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit Institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 150. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Quarterly; Monthly; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,393. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8337 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0040] National Poultry Improvement Plan; General Conference Committee Meeting and Biennial Conference AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: We are giving notice of meetings of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan and of the Biennial Conference. DATES: The General Conference Committee will meet on June 5, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. The Biennial Conference will be held on June 6, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on June 7, 2008, from 8 a.m. to noon. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks, 200 Sable Oaks Drive, South Portland, ME. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, 1498 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094;

(770)922-3496. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan

(NPIP)is the Secretary's Advisory Committee on poultry health. The Committee represents cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, and serves an essential program function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health. In addition, the Committee assists the Department in planning, organizing, and conducting the NPIP Biennial Conference. Topics for discussion at the upcoming meetings include: 1. H5/H7 low pathogenic avian influenza

(LPAI)program for commercial layers, broilers, and turkeys; 2. Compartmentalization of notifiable avian influenza free zones; 3. H5/H7 LPAI program for raised-for-release upland gamebird flocks; 4. Evaluation of rapid detection assays for Salmonella; and 5. Evaluation of antigen detection assays for avian influenza. The meetings will be open to the public. The sessions held on June 6 and 7, 2008, will include delegates to the NPIP Biennial Conference. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during either of the meetings. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meetings by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meetings. Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0040 when submitting your statements. This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-8417 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: National Survey of WIC Participants II AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before *June 17, 2008.* ADDRESSES: 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 will have practical utility;

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Steven Carlson, Director, Office of Research, Nutrition, and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Steven Carlson at

(703)305-2576, or via e-mail to *Steven.Carlson@fns.usda.gov* . All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 1014. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steven Carlson

(703)305-2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* National Survey of WIC Participants II. *OMB Number:* Not yet assigned. *Expiration Date:* To be determined. *Type of Request:* New collection of information. *Abstract:* In accordance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Public Law No. 107-300), which seeks to improve the integrity of the government's payments and the efficiency of programs and activities, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), FNS is seeking to carry out a Second National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP II). Ten years have elapsed since the first NSWP survey was conducted. That study provided national estimates of the case error rate and dollar error for the WIC program. It also collected demographic information about WIC participants and their families. The NSWP II study seeks to:

(1)Estimate the annual cost of erroneous payments in the WIC program by examining erroneous payments caused by WIC certification error among applicants; and

(2)provide information on the policies, procedures, operations, and staff of WIC State agencies and explore the characteristics and experiences of WIC applicants and participants. In addition, the study will develop a model for updating estimates of erroneous payments due to certification error in the WIC program that will allow the Food and Nutrition Service to calculate erroneous payments for the next 10 years before the next major NSWP study. *Affected Public:* State WIC Agency officials, Local WIC Agency directors and WIC participants. *Proposed Collection: State WIC Agency Survey:* Public burden is estimated at 66 minutes for one response each with a total of 99 hours for 90 respondents. *Local WIC Agency Survey:* Public burden is estimated at 40 minutes for one response each with a total of 334 hours for 500 respondents. *WIC Participants Data Collection (telephone interview only):* Public burden is estimated at 24 minutes for one response each with a total of 480 hours for 1200 respondents. *WIC Participants Data Collection (telephone and in-home interviews):* Public burden is estimated at 60 minutes (24 minutes telephone and 36 minutes in-home) for one response each with a total of 1200 hours for 1200 respondents. *WIC Denied/Terminated Applicants Data Collection:* Public burden is estimated at 6 minutes for one response each with a total of 64 hours for 640 respondents. Reporting Burden Respondent Estimated number of respondents Responses annually per respondent Total annual responses (col. b × c) Estimated avg. number of hours per response Estimated total hours (col. d × e) WIC Participants—telephone interviews only 1,200 1.00 1,200 0.40080 480.960 WIC Participants—telephone and home interview 1,200 1.00 1,200 1.00000 1,200.000 WIC Denied/Terminated Applicants Data Collection 640 1.00 640 0.10020 64.128 State WIC Agency Survey 90 1.00 90 1.10220 99.198 Local WIC Agency Survey 500 1.00 500 0.66800 334.000 Total 3,630 3,630 2,178.286 *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,630. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1 (average). *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 3,630. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 0.6 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested:* 2,178.286 hours. Dated: April 14, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8-8457 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices in the Southwestern Region, Which Includes Arizona, New Mexico, and Parts of Oklahoma and Texas AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all Ranger Districts, Grasslands, Forests, and the Regional Office of the Southwestern Region to give legal notice for the availability for comments on projects under 36 CFR 215, notice of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217, and for opportunities to object to proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects under 36 CFR 218.4. This notice also lists newspapers of record for notices pertaining to plan amendments and revisions under 36 CFR 219. Newspaper publication is in addition to mailings and direct notice made to those who have participated in the planning of projects or plan revisions and amendments by submitting comments and/or requesting notice. DATES: Use of these newspapers for the purpose of publishing legal notice for a plan amendment decision that is subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 217, for a comment and project decision that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215, for opportunity to object under 36 CFR 218 and for planning notices on a plan revision or plan amendment under 36 CFR part 219 shall begin on the date of this publication and continue until further notice. ADDRESSES: Southwestern Region, *ATTN:* Regional Appeals Assistant, 333 Broadway, SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102-3498. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Smith, 505-842-3223. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Where more than one newspaper is listed for any unit, the first newspaper listed is the primary newspaper of record of which publication date shall be used for calculating the time period to file comment, appeal or an objection. Southwestern Regional Office Regional Forester Notices of Availability for Comment and Decisions and Objections affecting New Mexico Forests: “ *Albuquerque Journal* ”, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for National Forest System Lands in the State of New Mexico and for any projects of Region-wide impact. Regional Forester Notices of Availability for Comment and Decisions and Objections affecting Arizona Forests: “ *The Arizona Republic* ”, Phoenix, Arizona, for National Forest System lands in the State of Arizona and for any projects of Region-wide impact. Regional Forester Notices of Availability for Comment and Decisions and Objections affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas are listed by Grassland and location as follows: Kiowa National Grassland notices published in : “ *Union County Leader* ”, Clayton New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma notices published in: “ *Boise City News* ”, Boise City, Oklahoma. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas notices published in: “ *The Dalhart Texan* ”, Dalhart, Texas. Black Kettle National Grassland in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma notices published in: “ *Cheyenne Star* ”, Cheyenne, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland in Hemphill County, Texas notices published in: “ *The Canadian Record* ”, Canadian, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland in Gray County, Texas notices published in: “ *The Pampa News* ”, Pampa, Texas. Arizona National Forests Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Alpine Ranger District, Black Mesa Ranger District, Lakeside Ranger District, and Springerville Ranger District are published in: “ *The White Mountain Independent* ”, Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona. Clifton Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Copper Era* ”, Clifton, Arizona. Coconino National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Mogollon Rim Ranger District, Mormon Lake Ranger District, and Peaks Ranger District are published in: “ *Arizona Daily Sun* ”, Flagstaff, Arizona. Red Rock Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Red Rock News* ”, Sedona, Arizona. Coronado National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Santa Catalina Ranger District are published in: “ *The Arizona Daily Star* ”, Tucson, Arizona. Douglas Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Daily Dispatch* ”, Douglas, Arizona. Nogales Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Nogales International* ”, Nogales, Arizona. Sierra Vista Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Sierra Vista Herald* ”, Sierra Vista, Arizona. Safford Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Eastern Arizona Courier* ”, Safford, Arizona. Kaibab National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, North Kaibab Ranger District, Tusayan Ranger District, and Williams Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Arizona Daily Sun* ”, Flagstaff, Arizona. Prescott National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Bradshaw Ranger District, Chino Valley Ranger District and Verde Ranger District are published in: “ *Prescott Courier* ”, Prescott, Arizona. Tonto National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor are published in: “ *East Valley Tribune* ”, Mesa and “ *Scottsdale Tribune* ”, Scottsdale, Arizona. Cave Creek Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Scottsdale Tribune* ”, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Globe Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Arizona Silver Belt* ”, Globe, Arizona. Mesa Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *East Valley Tribune* ”, Mesa, Arizona. Payson Ranger District, Pleasant Valley Ranger District and Tonto Basin Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Payson Roundup* ”, Payson, Arizona. New Mexico National Forests Carson National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Camino Real Ranger District, Tres Piedras Ranger District and Questa Ranger District are published in: “ *The Taos News* ”, Taos, New Mexico. Canjilon Ranger District and El Rito Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Rio Grande Sun* ”, Espanola, New Mexico. Jicarilla Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Farmington Daily Times* ”, Farmington, New Mexico. Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor affecting lands in New Mexico, except the National Grasslands are published in: “ *Albuquerque Journal* ”, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Forest Supervisor Notices affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas are published by grassland and location as follows: Kiowa National Grassland in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico, published in: “ *Union Gounty Leader* ”, Clayton, New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma published in: “ *Boise City News* ”, Boise City, Oklahoma. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas published in: “ *The Daihart Texan* ”, Daihart, Texas. Black Kettle National Grassland, in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma published in: “ *Cheyenne Star* ”, Cheyenne, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland, in Hemphill County, Texas published in: “ *The Canadian Record* ”, Canadian, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland published in: “ *The Pampa News* ”, Pampa, Texas. Mt. Taylor Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Cibola Gount Beacon* ”, Grants, New Mexico. Magdalena Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Defensor-Chieftain* ”, Socorro, New Mexico. Mountainair Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Mountain View Telegraph* ”, Moriarity, New Mexico. Sandia Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Albuquerque Journal* ”, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Kiowa National Grassland Notices are published in: “ *Union County Leader* ”, Clayton, New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland Notices in Cimarron County, Oklahoma are published in: “ *Boise City News* ”, Boise City, Oklahoma while Rita Blanca National Grassland Notices in Dallam County, Texas, are published in: “ *Dalhart Texan* ”, Daihart, Texas. Black Kettle National Grassland Notices in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma are published in: “ *Cheyenne Star* ”, Cheyenne, Oklahoma, while Black Kettle National Grassland Notices in Hemphill County, Texas are published in: “ *The Canadian Record* ”, Canadian, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland Notices are published in: “ *The Pampa News* ”, Pampa, Texas. Gila National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Quemado Ranger District, Reserve Ranger District, Glenwood Ranger District, Silver City Ranger District and Wilderness Ranger District are published in: “ *Silver City Daily Press* ”, Silver City, New Mexico. Black Range Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *The Herald* ”, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Lincoln National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and the Sacramento Ranger District are published in: “ *Alamogordo Daily News* ”, Alamogordo, New Mexico. Guadalupe Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Carlsbad Current Argus* ”, Carlsbad, New Mexico. Smokey Bear Ranger District Notices are published in: “ *Ruidoso News* ”, Ruidoso, New Mexico. Santa Fe National Forest Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor, Coyote Ranger District, Cuba Ranger District, Espanola Ranger District, Jemez Ranger District and Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District are published in: “ *Albuquerque Journal* ”, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Dated: April 7, 2008. Faye Krueger, Deputy Regional Forester, Southwestern Region. [FR Doc. E8-8223 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Revised Proposed Policy for Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees in the Alaska Region AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of revised proposed policy; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Alaska Region of the Forest Service is proposing a revised regional flat fee policy in place of the proposal published in the **Federal Register** on September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54454). The revised policy differs enough from the original proposed policy to merit public notice and comment. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Regional Forester, Attention: Recreation, Lands and Minerals Staff, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628; via electronic mail to *comments-alaska-regional-office@fs.fed.us* ; or via facsimile to

(907)586-7866. Please confine comments to issues pertinent to the revised proposed fee policy. Comments that were submitted previously in response to the September 15, 2006, **Federal Register** notice are addressed in the response to comments section of this preamble. The public is not required to send duplicate comments via regular mail when submitting comments by e-mail. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this revised proposed policy in Room 519D of the Federal Office Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on business days. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by June 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hagadorn,

(907)586-9336. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice supplements and incorporates to the extent it is consistent with the September 15, 2006, notice of the proposed long-term flat fee policy for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region, including the December 15. 2006, extension of the comment period for that proposed policy. Background In *The Tongass Conservancy* v. *Glickman,* No. J97-029-CV, slip op. (D. Alaska Sept. 19, 1998), the court held that the Forest Service's land use fee system must be fair to the plaintiff outfitter and guide, as well as based on the market value of the use of National Forest System

(NFS)lands. In addition, based on a concern that different fees were being charged for the same type of commercial use of NFS lands, the court held that there was “insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the fees charged to the plaintiff were both fair and based upon the value of the use of Forest Service lands available to the plaintiff.” *The Tongass Conservancy,* slip op. at 2. The court ordered the Alaska Region of the Forest Service to undertake actions consistent with the court's ruling and applicable law. In response, on July 21, 1999, the Alaska Region published in the **Federal Register** for public notice and comment a proposed interim flat fee policy for all outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region (Alaska Region Interim Flat Fee Policy or ARIFFP) (64 FR 39114, July 21, 1999). The notice for the final interim ARIFFP was published in the **Federal Register** , and went into effect on February 14, 2000 (65 FR 1846, January 12, 2000). On September 15, 2006, the Alaska Region published a notice of a proposed regional flat fee policy in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 54454) with a 90-day comment period. The agency received two requests for an extension of the comment period. The Forest Service extended the comment period until March 15, 2007 (71 FR 74896). The Alaska Region received 40 comments from individuals, outfitters and guides, the travel industry, and the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. Based on review of the comments, the Alaska Region is revising its proposed flat fee policy. The revised proposal in this notice replaces the initial proposal published on September 15, 2006. In August 2003, the Anchorage-based appraisal firm Black-Smith and Richards, Inc.

(BSR)completed its phase II market study (Final Phase II Report) on development of a land use fee system for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region that is both fair to the outfitters and guides and based on the fair market value of the use of NFS lands for outfitting and guiding. The Final Phase II Report identified two possible methods for land use fee schedule development in this context:

(1)The modified ARIFFP, which relates fees to gross revenues from outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands, and

(2)the bottom-up pricing method (BUPM), which ties outfitting and guiding land use fees to fees charged for comparable unguided recreational uses on non-federal lands (Final Phase II Report at 19). The initial proposal published on September 15, 2006, was based on the modified ARIFFP. The Alaska Region developed this revised proposal based on review of comments received on the initial proposal; BSR market survey data; the work group recommendations; the need to simplify administration of the land use fee program in the Alaska Region; and the application of sound business management principles. Comments Supporting Revision of the Proposed Flat Fee Policy *Comment.* Some respondents recommended adopting the BUPM since the approach would be simpler and result in more consistent fees. Some respondents thought that the BUPM better supports Alaska outfitting and guiding land use fees than the modified ARIFFP because the BUPM reflects changing market conditions. One respondent suggested that all commercial activities conducted in a remote setting be assessed the same fee as remote-setting nature tours. Several respondents thought that remote-setting nature tours are overcharged relative to other activities. Some respondents commented that remote-setting nature tours and road-based tours involve the same activities, such as hiking, nature viewing, and photography, and should be charged the same fee. One respondent stated that the original proposed fee schedule appears to charge different fees for the same or similar uses of NFS lands. Another respondent believed that the complexity in the original proposed fee schedule probably would result in operators reporting different uses and paying different fees for the same activities. Another respondent stated that BSR's Phase I Report concluded that the value of the use of NFS lands for nature viewing in roaded areas was the same as for nature viewing in remote areas. Another respondent stated that the original proposed fee schedule does not group similar activities together. One respondent said their business is a combination of road-based and remote-setting experiences and questioned how fees for their permit would be determined. One respondent asked why the original proposed fee schedule has two categories for helicopter tours and none for motorized water-borne tours. One respondent questioned why a motorized water tour in a remote-setting differs from flight-seeing or helicopter landing tours. Another respondent questioned why under the original proposed policy fees are higher for remote-setting nature tours than for other categories and noted that fees for other categories are not increasing in the same proportion as fees for remote-setting nature tours. Another respondent stated that certain activities, such as helicopter tours, are being unfairly targeted under the original proposed fee policy, since their fees would increase from $2.83 to $8.12. Some respondents requested a separate fee for their activity, including tours on kayak motherships; water-based tours with occasional stops on NFS lands; and environmental education tours. Some respondents stated that flat fees based upon the average of all outfitters' and guides' use days are unfair to small operators because they do not have a high volume of business. Several respondents commented that the original proposed fee schedule is fragmented into unrealistically narrow categories. One respondent commented that there is overlap among the activities in the original proposed fee schedule. Another respondent noted that the categories in the original proposed fee schedule are arbitrary and are not based on a meaningful distinction regarding use of NFS lands. Another respondent commented that the long-term flat fee policy would substantially expand the number of activities that a flight-seeing or helicopter landing tour operator would be required to track. One respondent suggested basing outfitting and guiding permit fees in the Alaska Region on a percentage of gross revenue. Several respondents stated that gross revenues are not an appropriate basis for calculating the value of special use privileges. One respondent stated that the assumption that gross revenues of a business conducted on NFS lands are an accurate reflection of the value of a business's use of those lands is flawed because net revenues can vary widely among businesses with similar gross revenues. Two respondents noted that the fees in the original proposed fee schedule are based on operating costs, which are not related to use of NFS lands. Another respondent questioned how the agency could obtain a meaningful average for purposes of establishing flat fees in the modified ARIFFP by combining revenues from a high-end operator charging $500 per day and revenues from an operator charging $50 per day. Another respondent stated that the Alaska Region did not exclude high-cost operators in developing the original proposed fee schedule, as was done in developing the ARIFFP. Another respondent stated that a flat fee proposal that bases fees in each category on the average revenue for all client days is unfair to small operators because they do not operate for the average number of days and do not have enough income to justify paying the applicable flat fee in the original proposed fee schedule. Two respondents stated that the cost of a tour is driven by the mode of access, which should have no bearing on the fees charged for the use that occurs after the land is accessed. One respondent noted that his business's revenue data were not considered in establishing the original proposed policy because his business started in 2004. Another respondent stated that the original proposed fee policy would impose a cumbersome administrative burden on outfitters and guides. *Response* . The Alaska Region has revised the proposed policy by applying market survey information from the Final Phase II Report to develop the BUPM and applying sound business management principles to simplify land use fee administration for outfitters and guides and the Alaska Region. The Final Phase H Report recognized that both the modified ARIFFP and the BUPM could be used to develop an outfitting and guiding permit fee system for the Alaska Region in compliance with the ruling in *The Tongass Conservancy* v. *Glickman* (Final Phase II Report at 9). The September 15, 2006, **Federal Register** notice states, “The data are too limited to develop unique values in the bottom-up pricing method for the diverse activities recognized in the Alaska Region” (71 FR 54459) (citing the Final Phase II Report at 59-60). In the discussion of the BUPM, the BSR report observes that the broader market recognizes only a few general categories of related uses (Final Phase II Report at 21). However, by reducing the 30 activities in the initial proposal to 9 activities in this revised proposal, sufficient market data are available to develop a land use fee schedule based on fees paid to non-federal land owners for comparable unguided land uses. The resulting fee schedule is more closely tied to the market than the original fee schedule. The large number of activities in the original proposed fee policy was carried over from the original flat fee schedule recommended for consideration by a working group from federal and state agencies assisting the Alaska Land Use Council (71 FR 54454 54455; Sept. 15, 2006). Road-based nature tours, remote-setting nature tours, flight seeing landing tours, helicopter landing tours, non-motorized freshwater boat trips, dog sled tours, camping, and road-based wildlife viewing activities are combined in this revised policy in one general recreation activity. These activities were combined because the market does not appear to differentiate between those types of unguided recreation activities. This new activity is consistent with the ruling in *The Tongass Conservancy* v. *Glickman* , which holds that to be fair to outfitters and guides, the Alaska Region's outfitting and guiding land use fee system must establish similar fees for similar uses of NFS lands. *The Tongass Conservancy* , slip op. at 8. Updating the fee schedule under the initial proposal would require periodic compilation of gross revenue and the number of client days and clients per hunt. The Final Phase H report states: In the bottom-up pricing method, flat fees are derived from a survey and correlation of actual market data. The only permit holder data required are the annual reports of client volumes. There is no percentage component (Final Phase 11 Report at 59). Updating the fee schedule under the revised proposal therefore would be less burdensome to the permit holders and the Alaska Region, since it would merely involve adjusting fees in accordance with the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross Domestic Product

(IPD)and periodic market surveys of unguided land use fees. In addition, combining the 8 activities from the original proposal into one general recreation category in the revised proposal reduces the potential for charging for the level of service provided and mode of transportation used to access NFS lands, and would assure greater fairness and equity to a larger segment of the outfitters and guides. Thus periodic updates of the fee schedule would be less burdensome and expensive than the process required to update the modified ARIFFP. The Forest Service disagrees with the comment that gross revenues are not an appropriate basis for calculating the value of special use privileges. Generally, the gross revenues of a business conducted on NFS lands are an accurate reflection of the value of the business's use of those lands, regardless of whether the business involves improvements on NFS lands. Gross revenues derived from use or occupancy of NFS lands are an accurate indicator of the value of that use or occupancy because generation of the income depends on use of NFS lands: without it, the business would not exist. This conclusion is supported by the 1996 Government Accountability Office

(GAO)report, “Fees for Recreation Special-Use Permits Do Not Reflect Fair Market Value” (1996 GAO report), which compares land use fees for outfitting and guiding based on a percentage of gross revenues that are charged by the Forest Service with land use fees charged by the State of Idaho for outfitting and guiding based on a percentage of gross revenues (GAO Report, RCED-97-16 (Sept. 1996) at 7)). Nevertheless, as stated in the original flat fee proposal (71 FR 54454), the agency believes that flat fees for outfitting and guiding are appropriate in the Alaska Region because many outfitters and guides in Alaska base a significant percentage of their client charges on activities that occur off NFS lands. In contrast to the original flat fee proposal, which was based on an average of revenues generated by outfitters and guides conducting activities on NFS lands, the revised flat fee proposal is completely divorced from gross revenues of outfitters and guides because it is based on the fees charged for comparable unguided uses on non-federal lands. Therefore, the comments on the original flat fee proposal regarding gross revenues do not apply to the revised flat fee proposal. Other Comments Short-Stop Fees *Comment* . One respondent said that there should be an incidental use category. Some respondents thought they should be charged a short-stop fee because their clients are not on NFS lands a high percentage of their tour. Another respondent suggested establishing a category for water-based tours with occasional stops on NFS lands. One respondent stated that the original proposed policy would result in land use fees based on the cost of delivering guests and other services, not on the value of the use of NFS lands. One respondent noted that in setting the fee for remote setting nature tours, the agency failed to ensure that fees are impermissibly based on revenues derived from services provided off NFS lands. *Response.* Short-stop fees are charged for trips that use NFS lands incidental to the purpose of the trip (FSH 2709.11, sec. 37.05). For example, both the initial and revised fee policies include short-stop flat fees that had been developed for Forest Service visitor centers in Alaska. The attraction of the Chugach and Tongass National Forests is not considered incidental to the purpose of outfitted and guided trips in Alaska. In general, non-federal landowners charge the same rate for unguided recreational uses, regardless of the time per day spent on their lands. Therefore, other than for visitor centers in Alaska, the Alaska Region believes that a short-stop fee is not appropriate for the outfitting and guiding uses in Alaska. Category for Nonprofit Educational Organizations *Comment.* One respondent asked the Alaska Region to consider adding a category for nonprofit educational organizations. *Response.* The Forest Service's regulations define a commercial use or activity as any use or activity on NFS lands where an entry or participation fee is charged or where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit (36 CFR 251.51). The Forest Service's regulations define guiding as providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, packing, touring, subsistence, transporting people, or interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or other gain to individuals or groups on NFS lands (36 CFR 251.51). The Forest Service's regulations define outfitting as renting or delivering to NFS lands for pecuniary remuneration or other gain any saddle or pack animal, vehicle, boat, camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment (36 CFR 251.51). Under these regulations, an entity that is conducting outfitting or guiding, regardless of whether it is intended to produce a profit, is engaging in a commercial activity that is subject to land use fees. Thus, it would not be appropriate to establish a separate category for nonprofit educational institutions in the Alaska Region's outfitting and guiding flat fee policy. Off-Forest Discount *Comment.* Some respondents commented that they spend a small portion of their time on NFS lands and should receive an 80 percent discount on fees derived as a percentage of gross revenue. One respondent stated that in setting fees, the agency must consider actual use or commercial dependency of outfitters and guides. *Response.* The revised proposed policy is not based on gross revenue or the amount of time spent on NFS lands. Fees would be charged per client per day or per client per hunt, regardless of the amount of time per day spent on NFS lands or the length of the hunt. In contrast to the fees in the initial proposed policy, i.e., in the modified ARIFFP, which were developed by determining the average price charged each client per day or per hunt for each category of outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands, the fees in the revised proposed policy were developed using data for fees charged for comparable unguided activities on non-federal lands. Thus, in contrast to the original proposed policy, the revised proposed policy is not derived from gross revenue of outfitters and guides operating on NFS lands. The market observations show that private and other government entities do not give discounts and that it is not necessary to apply a discount for revenue derived from use off NFS lands. Flat fees are derived from a survey and correlation of actual market data. There is no percentage component (Final Phase II Report at 59). Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952

(IOAA)*Comment.* Some respondents commented that the IOAA requires agency fees to be based on public policy, the value of the benefit to the recipient, and the cost to the government. One respondent stated that the IOAA does not mandate that permit fees serve as a revenue source for federal agencies. This same respondent stated that fees may be based on market prices and yield net revenues when the government is acting in a proprietary capacity, i.e., leasing or selling goods, but not where, as here, the government is acting in a proprietary capacity in providing access to federal lands. *Response.* Consistent with the IOAA and OMB Circular No. A-25. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 25 1.57(a)(I) provide that land use fees for special use authorizations shall be based on the fair market value of the rights and privileges authorized, as determined by appraisal or other sound business management principles. Likewise, the court in *The Tongass Conservancy* case held that while the land use fee must be fair to the plaintiff, the fee must also be based on the value of the use of NFS lands. *The Tongass Conservancy* , slip op. at 7. Therefore, land use fees for special uses, including outfitting and guiding. must be charged for the use of NFS lands, rather than for access to NFS lands. OMB Circular No. A-25 provides that user charges are based on recovery of full agency costs when an agency is acting in a sovereign capacity, e.g., when a land management agency is charging recreation fees for facilities and sites managed by that agency. OMB Circular No. A-25, sec. 6a(2)(a). However, when an agency is acting in a propriety capacity, e.g., when an agency is leasing or selling goods or resources, user charges are based on market prices. Id, at see. 6a(2)(b). Here, issuance of an outfitting and guiding permit authorizing use of NFS lands is analogous to authorizing use of federal lands under a lease. Therefore, under OMB Circular No. A-25, the proper standard is market value, rather than agency costs. Fees Based on Impacts to the Land *Comment.* Some respondents commented that the proposed fee policy does not take into account the impacts of outfitting and guiding activities on NFS lands. Others stated that camping trips have a much greater impact on the environment than boat tours and questioned why the fees are higher for boat tours than for camping. One respondent stated that fees should not be higher for non-consumptive uses of NFS lands. *Response.* Under the IOAA, OMB Circular No. A-25, and Forest Service regulations, the standard for determining land use fees charged by the Forest Service is the market value of the use of NFS lands, not the impact of the use on NFS lands. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take into account the impacts of outfitting and guiding activities in setting their land use fees. Objectivity of BSR *Comment.* One respondent questioned BSR's objectivity based on BSR's acceptance of the Forest Service's conclusion that current land use fees for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region do not reflect fair market value; BSR's use of the word “arguably” to justify a result favorable to the Alaska Region; and BSR's statement that the initial proposed fee policy “best meets the needs of the Alaska Region.” *Response.* The Alaska Region believes that BSR did not show any actual or apparent bias in any aspect of the outfitter and guide use evaluation. Both the Phase I and Phase II Reports contain certifications stating that BSR has no present or prospective interest in Forest Service special use authorizations; that BSR has no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved in the outfitting and guiding use valuation; that BSR's employment was not conditioned on, nor its compensation contingent upon, the reporting of a predetermined objective or direction that favors the cause of the Forest Service or any other party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event; and that BSR's analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and the reports were prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Phase I Report at 4; Final Phase II Report at 5). These certifications attest to BSR's lack of actual or apparent bias. The Forest Service's conclusion that current land use fees do not reflect fair market value is supported by BSR's data and analysis (see, e.g., Phase I Report at 48) and the 1996 GAO report, which specifically addresses outfitting and guiding land use fees. In particular, the 1996 GAO report states: In an effort to compare state and federal fees for commercial recreational activities, we compared some Forest Service-authorized commercial recreational uses and fees in national forests that we visited to similar uses and fees on state lands. We found some similar comparisons in three of the five states we visited. In those instances—in California, Idaho, and Colorado—the states' fees for commercial recreation uses ranged from 6 to 15 percent of gross sales or revenues, while the Forest Service's fees averaged less than 3 percent. * * *. Idaho's fee for 12 of these [outfitting and guiding] activities is 5 percent of gross sales or $250 annually, whichever is greater. In comparison, the Forest Service's fee for outfitters and guides is a maximum of 3 percent of gross revenues or $70, whichever is greater. (GAO Report, RCED-97-16 (Sept. 1996) at 7). Use of the word “arguably” does not show bias; rather, use of the word “arguably” qualifies a statement, i.e., shows that it is open to argument. Likewise, the statement that the initial proposed policy “best meets the needs of the Alaska Region” does not show bias because meeting the needs of the Alaska Region includes being fair to outfitters and guides. Specifically, the request for proposals

(RFP)for the outfitter and guide use valuation in the Alaska Region requires BSR to develop an outfitting and guiding fee system

(1)that is fair to outfitters and guides in charging similar fees for similar uses ( *see, e.g.,* Phase I Report at 49, evaluating the ability of each methodology to develop market prices that are fair to permit holders), as well as fair to the government in yielding fees that are based on the market value of the use of NFS lands;

(2)that will result in stable fees that do not vary widely over time;

(3)that will not require competitive award of permits except in circumstances of limited new outfitting and guiding opportunities where demand to provide services exceeds supply; and

(4)that will be simple to administer and that will not result in an undue reporting or record-keeping burden on permit holders (RFP at 11). Minimum Fees *Comment.* Some respondents commented that there is a need for a standard minimum fee for small operators. *Response.* The minimum fee for all outfitters and guides, regardless of the size of their business, is $100 and would stay the same in the revised proposed policy. Use of Proposed Fee Increases *Comment.* Some respondents questioned whether the increase in fees would be used to benefit outfitters and guides and visitors to the national forests. *Response.* Forest Service outfitting and guiding permits are issued under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

(REA)(16 U.S.C. 6801-6814). REA requires the Forest Service to retain and spend at least 80 percent of the funds collected under that statute, including land use fees from permits, at the site where the funds are collected, for enhancement and administration of the special uses program. Therefore, any increase in fees would benefit outfitters and guides and visitors to the national forests in the Alaska Region. Fees Charged When Multiple Activities Are Involved *Comment.* One respondent questioned which fee takes precedence if two or more activities are involved in a tour. Another respondent was concerned that the agency would charge the higher fee if both activities are conducted the same day. *Response.* Currently, when an outfitter or guide conducts more than one authorized activity on a given day, the Alaska Region charges the highest fee from the fees for those activities. The revised proposed policy would eliminate this practice for any activities that are combined in the general recreation category. However, if an outfitter or guide conducts activities that fall into more than one category in the revised proposed policy, the outfitter or guide would pay the fee for the primary activity authorized in the corresponding permit. The actual use report would determine the fee that would be charged. Regulatory Flexibility Act *Comment.* One respondent commented that the Forest Service has failed to support its certification that a Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)analysis is not required. Specifically, this respondent noted that there are no cost estimates as to any potential economic impact of the increased land use fees on outfitters and guides or the tourism industry. Other respondents commented generally on potential economic impacts. One respondent stated that it is difficult to absorb the rapidly rising costs of doing business. Another stated that the proposed increases in fees will be difficult to absorb. One respondent stated that it seems as if the proposed fees are geared toward eliminating the small ceo-tour operator. Another respondent expressed a concern that the trend established in part by the proposed policy is for the big companies to take over tours in the Alaska Region. That same respondent stated that she would not be able to pass this increase on to cruise lines with whom she contracts. Another respondent stated that the increase in fees would cause hardship to his business. Another respondent stated that additional economic burdens will discourage many businesses from continuing to offer services to the public. One respondent stated that small operators may be disadvantaged under the original proposed fee policy. One respondent noted that as a small business owner, he cannot justify raising his rates to include the proposed fee increase, yet cannot absorb the proposed increase without raising his rates. Another respondent stated that outfitters and guides cannot increase the volume of their business to cover increased fees. One respondent noted that he cannot absorb the large proposed increase for trips such as hunting that are booked 2 or 3 years in advance. *Response.* The Forest Service has conducted a threshold RFA analysis of the revised proposed policy. Based on this analysis, the agency has concluded that the revised proposed policy would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the RFA because the revised proposed policy would not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities, and it would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. A copy of the threshold RFA analysis is included in the record for the revised proposed policy. Process Used To Develop the Proposed Policy *Comment.* One respondent stated that the process used to develop the initial proposed fee policy was flawed because it did not involve the visitor services industry or outfitters and guides. *Response.* In developing policy subject to public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act or the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service must observe applicable procedural requirements regarding public involvement, including forming a federal advisory committee to conduct negotiated rulemaking with affected parties or publishing a proposal in the **Federal Register** for public notice and comment. The Alaska Region has met these requirements by publishing both the initial and revised proposed policies in the **Federal Register** for public notice and comment. Comments Beyond the Scope of the Proposed Flat Fee Policy *Comment.* One respondent assumed that if the proposed fees go into effect, the respondent's request for authorization to install a sanitary removable outhouse, a yurt, and a yurt pad would be allowed. Another respondent noted that the Forest Service does not support brown bear research being conducted by the State of Alaska. One respondent stated that the Forest Service must address unreported and unauthorized outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands. One respondent stated that the initial proposed policy would impose air carrier requirements on entities that conduct air tours under Federal Aviation Administration regulations. *Response.* The initial and revised proposed policies would establish a long-term flat fee system for outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands in the Alaska Region. Neither proposed policy would address authorization of installation of improvements on NFS lands: research conducted by the State of Alaska; unreported or unauthorized use of NFS lands; or air carrier requirements. Revised Proposed Alaska Region Long-Term Flat Fee Policy The Alaska Region developed the revised proposed long-term flat fee policy in response to many comments on the initial proposed policy. The Alaska Region reduced the number of activities from 30 to 9, resulting in a simpler, less expensive system to administer and update and greater predictability and consistency in implementation. The revised proposed policy is also easier and less expensive to administer and update because it does not include a market-based percentage rate, and the only permit holder data required are annual reports of client volumes. In compliance with the court order in The *Tongass Conservancy case,* under the revised proposal, similar fees would be charged for similar activities, consistent with the broader market, and the fees would yield a fair return to the government. The fees in the revised proposal are based on the review of comments received on the initial proposal; BSR market survey data; the work group recommendations; the need to simplify administration of the land use fee program in the Alaska Region; and the application of sound business management principles. The BUPM prices outfitter and guide use in terms of the value of comparable unguided use evidenced in the market place and develops flat fees based on these comparable unguided use values (Final Phase II Report at 8 and 59). Table 1 displays the revised proposed fees for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region. Table 1.—Alaska Region Revised Proposed Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees Activity Proposed daily flat fee VISITOR CENTERS (per client/per day): Visitor Centers * $1.50 GENERAL RECREATION (per client/per day): All General Recreation Activities ** 5.00 HELI-SKIING & OVER-SNOW VEHICLE TOURS (per client/per day): Over-snow Vehicle Tours 10.00 Heli-skiing Tours FRESH WATER FISHING AND SMALL GAME HUNTING (per client/per day): Freshwater Fishing and Waterfowl 10.00 Small Game Hunting (Including Wolf) BIG GAME HUNTING (per client/per hunt): Brown Bear 330.00 Mountain Goats/Dall Sheep/Moose/Elk 200.00 Black Bear 150.00 Deer 100.00 EQUIPMENT SERVICES (per day): Delivery and/or Pick-Up of Motorized and Nonmotorized Equipment, Such as Kayaks, Over-Snow Vehicles, and Camping Equipment, to National Forest System Lands for Clients 10.00 * Visitor center flat fees do not include fees paid by visitors authorized under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. ** General recreation includes road-based nature tours, remote-setting nature tours, flight-seeing landing tours, helicopter landing tours, non-motorized freshwater boat trips, dog-sled tours, camping, and road-based wildlife viewing activities that are in the current fee schedule. The land use fees charged for each category are described below. Visitor Centers The visitor center fee does not include the standard amenity recreation fee that is charged for these sites under REA. General Recreation Activities According to the BSR market survey, the market place does not recognize a high level of stratification in setting fees for general recreation (Final Phase 11 Report at 21). Consequently, in the revised proposed policy, activities such as road-based nature tours, remote-setting nature tours, and flight-seeing landing tours are grouped in the general recreation category. Based on the reconciliation of available market data for unguided uses, the BSR market survey concludes that a fee of $5.00 per day is appropriate for general recreation use. The report further observes that the market does not distinguish between partial days and whole days, the point of origin, or the mode of transportation used to conduct the activity (Final Report Phase H at 22). Helicopter Skiing and Over-Snow Vehicle Tours A higher fee for helicopter skiing and over-snow vehicle tours compared to general recreation is justified in comparison with NFS lands suitable for general recreation, NFS lands suitable for safe helicopter skiing and over-snow vehicle tours are much more limited, yet the demand for these activities is equally strong. Additionally, the average time per day spent on NFS lands for helicopter skiing is considerably longer than for helicopter landing tours. Fresh Water Fishing and Small Game Hunting Compared to general recreational activities such as remote-setting nature tours, commercial fishing and small game hunting require special habitats that are more limited. Habitats that contain fish-bearing fresh water streams are both limited in supply and high in demand. Setting a higher fee for fishing and small game hunting than for general recreation is therefore justified and consistent with the BSR market survey (Final Phase 11 Report at 27 and 29). Big Game Hunting There are four activities for big game hunting:

(1)Brown bear;

(2)mountain goat, Dall sheep, moose, and elk;

(3)black bear and

(4)deer. The BSR market survey estimates the value of an unguided, typical multi-day deer hunt without camping at approximately $100. To adjust for Alaska conditions, the fees for the remaining big game hunt categories are derived by applying ratios similar to those between tag fees charged by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the different species, and reflected in the BSR market survey. (Final Phase II Report at 41-53). The fees charged for big game hunting reflect the availability and character of the habitat for the different big game species. For example, habitat suitable for deer is more plentiful than habitat suitable for mountain goats and coastal brown bears. In addition, the revised proposed fee schedule tracks the broader market in not distinguishing between hunts with and without camping (Final Phase IT Report at 41). Equipment Services This activity allows an outfitter to deliver and pick up equipment and vehicles on NFS lands for clients, including kayaks, snowmobiles, bicycles, camping gear, etc. for one flat fee per day. Comparison of the Initial and Revised Proposed Fee Policies Table 2 displays the Alaska Region activities in column 1. Column 2 shows the 2006 fees that were charged for the current activities. Fees that would have been charged under the initial proposed fee policy are shown in column 3. The BUPM fees from the BSR market study are shown in column 4. The revised proposed fees are shown in column 5. Table 2.—Comparison of Initial and Revised Proposed Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Foes for the Alaska Region Activities 2006 fees 2006 modified ARIFFP fees BUPM fees Revised proposed fees Fees for recreation use are charged per client day General Recreation: Road-Based Nature Tours $0.57 $2.16 $5.00 $5.00 Remote-Setting Nature Tours 2.83 13.80 5.00 5.00 Flight-Seeing Landing Tours 2.26 6.76 5.00 5.00 Helicopter Landing Tours 2.83 8.12 5.00 5.00 Dog Sled Tours 2.83 4.87 5.00 5.00 Camping 4.52 5.68 5.00 5.00 Road-Based Wildlife Viewing 0.57 2.16 5.00 5.00 Remote Wildlife Viewing 2.83 8.12 5.00 5.00 Visitor Centers * 0.57 1.62 4.00 1.50 Over-Snow Vehicle Tours 4.52 4.87 10.00 10.00 Heli-Skiing Tours 8.76 22.19 5.00 10.00 Freshwater Fishing 2.83 9.74 10.00 10.00 Waterfowl and Small Game Hunting (including wolf) 5.65 12.99 10.00 10.00 Fees for big game hunting are charged by the hunt Brown Bear: Day Use 158.27 389.63 625.00 330.00 Camping 220.43 497.86 665.00 330.00 Black Bear: Day Use 79.12 119.05 185.00 150.00 Camping 135.66 211.05 205.00 150.00 Elk: Day Use N/A 119.05 220.00 200.00 Camping 211.05 245.00 200.00 Moose: Day Use N/A 119.05 270.00 200.00 Camping 211.05 300.00 200.00 Mountain Goats and Dali: Sheep: Day Use 118.70 248.93 220.00 200.00 Camping 146.95 319.28 245.00 200.00 Deer: Day Use 33.91 70.35 105.00 100.00 Camping 79.12 92.00 125.00 100.00 Equipment services are charged per day Delivery and/or Pick-Up of Motorized and Nonmotorized Equipment, such as Kayaks, Over-Snow Vehicles, and Camping Equipment, to National Forest System Lands 6.25 6.76 10.00 10.00 * Visitor center flat fees do not include fees paid by visitors authorized under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Implementation The Alaska Region intends to conduct a market review every five years to update the land use fees for outfitting and guiding in the Region based on a market survey of fees charged by non-federal landowners for unguided recreational activities that are comparable to those conducted by outfitters and guides in the Alaska Region. As part of the market survey, the Alaska Region will evaluate market data regarding comparable unguided recreational activities conducted on non-federal land that are submitted by the outfitting and guiding industry and outfitters and guides in the Alaska Region. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact This proposed policy would establish administrative fee categories and procedures for calculating permit fees for outfitters and guides operating in the Alaska Region of the Forest Service. Section 31.12 (formerly section 31.1b) of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes or instructions.” The Alaska Region's preliminary assessment is that this proposed policy falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist, which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made on adoption of the final policy. Regulatory Impact This proposed policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. It has been determined that this not a significant policy. The proposed policy could not and might not reasonably be anticipated to lead to an annual effect of $100 million or more on 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; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; raise novel legal or policy issues; or materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this proposed policy is not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13422. This proposed policy has also been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The revised proposed flat fee policy would affect a substantial number of small entities. However, the impact on those entities would not be significant. The proposed fee increases are not significant when compared to the amounts charged by these entities to their clients and could readily be absorbed. Accordingly, the revised proposed flat fee policy would not affect the competitive position of small entities in relation to large entities, nor would the revised proposed flat fee policy substantially affect small entities' cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. In addition, the revised proposed flat fee policy would not impose new record-keeping requirements on small business holders of special use authorizations. To the contrary, the greater efficiency and consistency achieved by the revised proposed policy in simplifying the fee categories and the method for updating fees would benefit both outfitters and guides in the Alaska Region and the Forest Service. Therefore, no further analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. No Takings Implications This proposed policy has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined that the proposed policy would not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed policy has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. If this proposed policy were adopted,

(1)all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed policy or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed policy; and

(3)it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Alaska Region has assessed the effects of the proposed policy on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed policy would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under Section 202 of the act is not required. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The Alaska Region has considered this proposed policy directive under the requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has determined that the proposed policy would conform with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Alaska Region has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Moreover, this proposed policy would not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required. Energy Effects This proposed policy has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this proposed policy would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This proposed policy does not contain any record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. The information collection being requested as a result of this action has been approved by OMB. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Dated: April 10, 2008. Paul K. Brewster, Deputy Regional Forester, Alaska Region. [FR Doc. E8-8239 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 8 and February 22, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 7521; 9766) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List: Product Tray, Mess, Compartmented *NSN:* 7350-01-012-8787. *NPA:* The Lighthouse f/t Blind in New Orleans, New Orleans, LA. *Coverage:* B-List for the broad Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Services *Service Type/Location(s):* Administrative & Mailroom Support Services, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (5 Locations): Fort Worth Regional Office, 801 Cherry Street, Room 2500, Fort Worth, TX. Lubbock Office, 1205 Texas Avenue, Suite 511, Lubbock, TX. Memphis Field Office, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN. San Antonio Field Office, One Alameda Center, 106 S. St. Mary's Street, Suite 405, San Antonio, TX. Shreveport Field Office, 401 Edwards Street, Suite 1510, Shreveport, LA. *NPA:* Nobis Enterprises, Inc., Marietta, GA. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Field Administrative Resources (OFAR), Atlanta, GA. *Service Type/Location:* Base Supply Center, Base Supply Center, Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI. *NPA:* Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, NY. *Contracting Activity:* Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Norfolk Contracting Department, Groton, CT. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Michigan Area Office, 307 South Harbor Street, Grand Haven, MI. *NPA:* Goodwill Industries of West Michigan, Inc., Muskegon, MI. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Detroit, Detroit, MI. *Service Type/Location:* Laundry Services, Blanchfield Army Community Hospital (BACH), Fort Campbell, KY. *NPA:* Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Army, Southeast Regional Contracting Office (SERCO), Fort Gordon, GA. *Service Type/Location:* Laundry Services, Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, KY. *NPA:* Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Army, Army Contracting Agency, Directorate of Contacting, Fort Campbell, KY. This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-8367 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and a service previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* May 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)

(2)and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Services *Service Type/Location:* Base Supply Center & HAZMAT, Naval Air Station—Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB), New Orleans, LA. *NPA:* Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., Raleigh, NC. *Contracting Activity:* Fleet and Industrial Supply Center—Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Fort Sam Houston, Camp Bullis, Building 6116, San Antonio, TX. *NPA:* Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX. *Contracting Activity:* Southern Region Contracting Center-West, Fort Sam Houston, TX. *Service Type/Locations:* Mailroom Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 1100 Center Parkway (Camp Creek Business Center), 180 Spring Street, 2150 Park Lake Drive, Atlanta, GA. *NPA:* WORKTEC, Jonesboro, GA. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products Frame, Transparency Mounting *NSN:* 6750-00-378-6825. *NPA:* Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office and Photographic Equipment Division. Hydration On-the-Move System *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0041—Canteen, One Quart Flexible—Echo. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0097—Sierra Black. *NPA:* The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA. Computer Accessories *NSN:* 7045-01-483-7832—CD Organizer. *NSN:* 7045-01-483-7837—Ergo Gel Keyboard and Monitor Platform. *NPA:* Wiscraft Inc.—Wisconsin Enterprises for the Blind, Milwaukee, WI. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Service *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Social Security Administration, 142 Auburn Street, Pontiac, MI. *NPA:* New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Region 5, Chicago, IL. Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-8366 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Docket 20-2008 Foreign-Trade Zone 122 - Corpus Christi, Texas, Application for Subzone, Haliburton Energy Services, Inc., (Barite Grinding and Milling), Corpus Christi, Texas, Correction The **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 20246, 4/15/08) describing the application submitted by the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, requesting special-purpose subzone status for Haliburton Energy Services, Inc.

(HESI)in Corpus Christi , is corrected as follows: In the heading of the notice, third line, the correct docket number for the case should read “Docket 20-2008.” Dated: April 15, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8436 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-602-806 Postponement of Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone:

(202)482-3477 or

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Final Determination On March 26, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary determination of the antidumping duty investigation of electrolytic manganese dioxide from Australia. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia* , 73 FR 15982 (March 26, 2008). The preliminary determination notice stated that the Department would issue its final determination within 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, in accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On March 25, 2008, the respondent, Delta EMD Australia Pty Ltd. (Delta), made a timely request pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act for a postponement of the final determination. On March 27, 2008, the petitioner, Tronox, LLC, stated that it supports the proposed extension of the deadline for the final determination. Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of an affirmative preliminary determination if a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Delta accounts for a significant portion of exports of the subject merchandise. *See* Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia - Respondent Identification” (October 25, 2007). Section 351.210 (e)(2) of the Department’s regulations requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination must also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months. In its March 25, 2008, submission, Delta requested the extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not longer than six months. Therefore, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination to August 8, 2008, which is 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . In addition, we have also extended provisional measures to not longer than six months. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii). Dated: April 14, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8421 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 08-00005] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review From Redberri Global Corporation. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification is sought and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five

(5)copies, plus two

(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021X, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 08-00005.” A summary of the application follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* Redberri Global Corporation (“Redberri”), 3152 Cherokee Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63118. *Contact:* Dr. Deepak K. Vyas, Chief Executive Officer, Telephone:

(314)776-8927. *Application No.:* 08-00005. *Date Deemed Submitted:* April 7, 2008. *Members* (in addition to applicant): None. Redberri seeks a Certificate to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations. Export Trade A. Products All Products, with emphasis on products that incorporate technologies such as bio-technology, software, nanotechnology, telemedicine, and other related technologies. B. Services All Services. C. Technology Rights Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, that relate to product and services. D. Export Trade Facilitation Services (as They Relate to the Export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights) Export Trade Facilitation Services include professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; export trade negotiations; joint ventures; logistical support; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; and transfer of technology. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. Redberri, on its own behalf or on behalf of any or all of its clients may: a. *Sales Prices:* Establish sale prices, minimum sale prices, target sale prices and/or minimum target sale prices, and other terms of sale, in the Export Markets; b. *Marketing and Distribution:* Conduct marketing and distribution of Products in the Export Markets. c. *Promotion:* Conduct promotion of Products, Services, and Technology Rights in the Export Markets; d. *Quantities:* Agree on quantities of Products to be sold, provided that each client shall be required to dedicate only such quantity or quantities as each such client shall independently determine. e. *Market and Customer Allocation:* Allocate geographic areas or countries in the Export Markets and/or customers in the Export Markets; f. *Refusals to Deal:* Refuse to quote prices for Products and Services or to market or sell Products and Services, to or for any customers in the Export Markets, or any countries or geographical areas in the Export Markets; g. *Exclusive and Nonexclusive Export Intermediaries:* Enter into exclusive and nonexclusive agreements appointing one or more Export Intermediaries, including regional representatives in the Export Markets, for the sale of Products and Services with price, quantity, territorial and/or customer restrictions as provided above; 2. Redberri may exchange and discuss the following information with Suppliers and Export Intermediaries on an individual, one-to-one basis: a. Information about sale and marketing efforts for the Export Markets, activities and opportunities for sales of Products in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets, projected demands in the Export Markets for Products, customary terms of sale in the Export Markets, prices and availability of Products from competitors for sale in the Export Markets, and specifications for Products by customers in the Export Markets; b. Information about the price, quality, quantity, source, and delivery dates of Products available from Suppliers for export; c. Information about terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on by Redberri; d. Information about joint bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets and allocations of sales resulting from such arrangements among clients; e. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs, duties, and taxes; f. Information about U.S. and foreign legislation and regulations, including federal marketing order programs, affecting sales for the Export Markets; g. Information about Redberri's export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by Redberri or its clients in the Export Markets (including export price information); and h. Information about export customer credit terms and credit history. 3. Redberri and its clients may meet to engage in the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 4. Redberri and its clients may jointly participate in international trade shows and technology summits. 5. Redberri may market Products, Services, and Technology Rights under Aquaglobex, Redberri, BIE, USTOOLCITI, Toolciti, Aquaglobal, Medicalciti or U.S. Pneumatic and other brands to optimize its brand name recognition. 6. Redberri Global Corporation intends to develop world class infrastructure to develop international trade for U.S.-made products and optimize global sales of American products through innovative incubation, brand development, market management, and technology development. 7. Form and operate electronic portals to promote Products, Services, and Technology Rights through a virtual marketplace for buyers and sellers, and provide access to export trade opportunities, including publicly available overseas government tenders and non-governmental organization tenders. 8. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, Redberri may: a. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services; b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients; c. Enter into exclusive and/or nonexclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to the Export Markets; d. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights; e. Allocate export orders among Suppliers; f. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in the Export Markets; and g. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights. Definition “Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, import agent, broker, or who performs similar functions including providing or arranging for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services. “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights. Dated: April 15, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-8520 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Manufacturing & Services' Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative; Update ACTION: Notice of updates and e-mail list sign-up. SUMMARY: The International Trade Administration's Manufacturing & Services Unit held a Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative event on September 27, 2007. Manufacturing & Services is notifying the public of outcomes of the September 2007 event and of this initiative's dynamic Web presence and e-mail list sign-up. DATES: N/A. ADDRESSES: N/A. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Howard in Manufacturing & Services' Office of Trade Policy Analysis, 202-482-3703. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sustainable manufacturing practices in the United States have become increasingly popular in recent years as companies look for new ways to make more efficient use of resources, ensure compliance with domestic and international regulations related to environment and health, and enhance the marketability of their products and services. As the trend towards sustainable manufacturing practices grows, so do its implications for U.S. global competitiveness and firm profitability. At the Department of Commerce, one of our main goals is to foster domestic and international conditions for doing business that allow U.S. firms to successfully compete internationally. Evidence has shown that firms incorporating both environmentally and economically sustainable manufacturing processes can gain competitive advantages by achieving inherent cost savings (i.e., improving their energy efficiency, minimizing raw materials usage, etc.) while at the same time reaping societal benefits for being good stewards of the environment. Many U.S. firms have demonstrated that being environmentally sustainable can also mean being profitable. In order to provide effective and continued support to U.S. companies in their sustainable manufacturing efforts, Commerce's Manufacturing & Services

(MAS)unit has launched a Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative and Public-Private Dialogue that aims to

(a)identify U.S. industry's most pressing sustainable manufacturing challenges and

(b)coordinate public and private sector efforts to address these challenges. MAS received a great deal of constructive individual feedback from U.S. industry at its September 27, 2007 “Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness Through Sustainable Manufacturing: A Public-Private Dialogue” event. Participants from both the public and private sectors agreed that sustainable manufacturing is an area where the United States must continue to increase its global competitive advantage, both in its ability to develop and utilize cleaner, more energy-efficient technologies and in its ability to implement manufacturing practices that are cost-effective and environmentally sound. MAS has developed a dynamic Web presence to help keep the public informed of news on the Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative. Information on this initiative can be found at: *http://trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing/index.asp.* This Web site features an e-mail list sign-up function where interested companies and individuals may sign-up for news and other updates on Manufacturing & Services' Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative. To help maintain and enhance forward momentum on this initiative and continue the follow-up to the September 2007 event, MAS plans to take on four specific efforts in response to U.S. industry requests for USG action on the topic of sustainable manufacturing: 1. *Establishment of an Interagency Task Force on Sustainable Manufacturing.* To help maximize the value of complementary sustainable manufacturing efforts by various federal agencies as well as ensure the continuity of the MAS Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative, MAS is proposing to establish and chair an interagency task force on sustainable manufacturing. Comprised of representatives of interested federal agencies, this task force will be responsible for carrying out projects identified through the public-private dialogue as U.S. industry priorities. 2. *Creation of a Central Online Clearinghouse of USG Programs and Resources That Support Sustainable Business.* There are numerous U.S. government

(USG)programs currently available to support sustainable business practices in the United States; however, there is currently no single portal yet available to the public that catalogs these many programs. To begin consolidating this information, Commerce will begin working with other federal agencies via the interagency task force to launch an online clearinghouse that U.S. companies can use to identify the USG programs and resources that are right for them. MAS has already begun developing the clearinghouse, which can be found at the following Web address (please note this is not the final product, but merely a starting point and it is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all relevant USG resources in support of U.S. industry's sustainable manufacturing efforts): *http://trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing/USG_PRS_Sustainable_Business.asp.* 3. *Leading Domestic Trade Missions to Promote Sustainable Manufacturing.* Numerous U.S. companies have voiced concerns over the lack of visibility sustainable manufacturing receives nationwide and the lack of information U.S. manufacturers possess in this field. In order to continue spreading awareness of sustainable manufacturing's benefits, both to U.S. global competitiveness and the environment, MAS proposes and is currently exploring the feasibility of a domestic trade mission in the United States, leading small and medium-size business owners on a site tour of some of the leading sustainable manufacturers in the country. 4. *Creation of Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing.* Efforts in response to U.S. industry requests for metrics that can be used to measure the economic, environmental and social impacts of sustainable manufacturing have been underway between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD)since 2005. Commerce has submitted a proposal to the OECD for a study that would propose a series of metrics to help businesses measure sustainable manufacturing's cost-effectiveness as well as its benefits to the environment and society as a whole. This proposal has been accepted by the OECD and work on this study is expected to commence in the spring of 2008. The Department of Commerce is also seeking U.S. industry representation on a newly created OECD Sustainable Manufacturing Experts Group that will help to oversee and guide the aforementioned study. Interested companies should contact the Manufacturing & Services' Office of Trade Policy Analysis at the number listed above. Dated: April 9, 2008. Matthew Howard, Office of Trade Policy Analysis. [FR Doc. E8-8359 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG93 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Marine Conservation Plan for Pacific Insular Areas; Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of agency decision. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the approval of a three-year marine conservation plan

(MCP)for Pacific Insular Areas other than American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. DATES: This agency decision is effective April 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the marine conservation plan are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel. 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alvin Katekaru, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, 808-944-2207. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 204(e)of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in consultation with the Council, may negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA) to allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)adjacent to any Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, which, by definition, does not include the State of Hawaii. Prior to entering into a PIAFA, the Council shall develop a three-year Marine Conservation Plan

(MCP)providing details on uses for funds to be collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes that any payment received under a PIAFA in support of conservation and management objectives in an MCP developed by the Council and, in the case of violations by foreign vessels occurring within the EEZ off any Pacific Insular Area (other than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands), any amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, shall be deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund for use by the Council. The MCP to be approved by the Secretary must be consistent with the Council's fishery management plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing is being contemplated at this time, the Council has developed an MCP for the Pacific Insular Areas here defined as the EEZ around Johnston and Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Jarvis, Howland, Baker, and Wake Islands. These areas are sometimes known as the “Pacific remote island areas” or “U.S. island possessions in the Central Pacific Ocean.” At its 139th meeting held in October 2007, the Council approved its “Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund Marine Conservation Plan,” dated August 29, 2007. The MCP contains seven objectives: 1. Support quality research and obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries; 2. Promote an ecosystem approach in fisheries management, including reducing waste in fisheries and minimizing impacts on marine habitats and impacts on protected species; 3. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision-making process; 4. Recognize the importance of island cultures and traditional fishing practices in managing fishery resources, and foster opportunities for participation; 5. Promote environmentally-responsible fishing and the utilization of sustainable fisheries that provide long-term economic growth and stability; 6. Promote regional cooperation to manage domestic and international fisheries; and 7. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance, and to ensure safety at sea. The MCP also identifies major task areas that include data collection and monitoring, management, biological research and assessment, social economic research and assessment, policy development, protected species, public outreach, etc., within which projects are ranked in order of priority. On November 6, 2007, the Council transmitted its MCP to NMFS (designee of the Secretary) for approval. This notice announces that NMFS has determined that the Council's MCP satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that NMFS has approved the MCP for the three-year period from April 11, 2008, through April 10, 2011. Dated: April 14, 2008. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1150 Filed 4-15-08; 2:24 pm]

Connectionstraces to 68

Traces to 68 documents