Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking

69,353 words·~315 min read·/register/2008/04/23/08-1175

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

BILLING CODE 4810-25-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0096] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Festival of Sail 2008 Ship's Parade; San Diego Harbor, San Diego, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone, on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay in support of the Festival of Sail 2008 Ship's Parade. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0096 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 Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at

(619)278-7233. 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-2008-0096), 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, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0096) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit 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. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Maritime Museum of San Diego is sponsoring the Festival of Sail 2008 Ship's Parade, which will transit through San Diego Bay. The event is a classic naval review consisting of 15 tall ships of various classes, some of which are restricted in their maneuverability. The sponsor will provide 16 enforcement vessels to patrol this event. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone that would be enforced from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 20, 2008. The limits of the safety zone would be as follows: The route would start at 32°37.15′ N, 117°14.07′ W and would proceed northeast between green Buoy #3 and red Buoy #4 at 32°3812′ N, 117°13.74′ W, then north between green Buoy #5 and red Buoy #6 at 32°39.14′ N, 117°13.51′ W, then north through the harbor channel to 32°42.07′ N, 117°13.90′ W, and then northeast to 32°43.11′ N, 117°12.71′ W, and then east to 32°43.13′ N, 117°11.12′ W, and finally southeast to the Coronado Bridge at 32°41.45′ N, 11°09.18′ W. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators, and participants of the event and to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. 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. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will be not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times. 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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the San Diego Bay from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 20, 2000. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only three hours for a period of one day. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners

(LNM)and will issue broadcast notice to mariners

(BNM)alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced. 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 Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at

(619)278-7233. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . 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 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary *§ 165.T11-014 to read as follows:* § 165.T11-014 Safety Zone; Festival of Sail 2008 Ship's Parade; San Diego Harbor, San Diego, CA.

(a)*Location.* The limits of the proposed moving safety zone are as follows: The route would start at 32°37.15′ N, 117°14.07′ W and would proceed northeast between green Buoy #3 and red Buoy #4 at 32°38.12′ N, 117°13.74′ W, then north between green Buoy #5 and red Buoy #6 at 32°39.14′ N, 117°13.51′ W, then north through the harbor channel to 32°42.07′ N, 117°13.90′ W, and then northeast to 32°43.11′ N, 117°12.71′ W, and then east to 32°43.13′ N, 117°11.12′ W, and finally southeast to the Coronado Bridge at 32°41.45′ N, 11°09.18′ W.

(b)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 20, 2008. If the event concludes prior to the schedules termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c)*Regulations.* Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative. Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Dated: March 17, 2008. C.V. Stangfeld, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Diego. [FR Doc. E8-8732 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0272] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Patapsco River, Middle Branch, Baltimore, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone on certain waters of the Patapsco River, Middle Branch, in Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland, during the August 9, 2008, USS *Sterett* Commissioning ceremony. The security zone is necessary to provide for the security of the USS *Sterett* and the safety of life of event participants, spectators and mariners on U.S. navigable waters during the event. Entry into the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0272 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.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. 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-2008-0272), 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-2008-0272) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Commander, U. S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. The Captain of the Port Baltimore is proposing to establish a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against the USS Sterett and a large number of participants at the South Locust Point Marine Terminal, and the surrounding waterfront areas and communities, in Baltimore, Maryland. The proposed security zone is necessary to safeguard life and property on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. This zone will help the Coast Guard prevent vessels or persons from bypassing the security measures established on shore for the ceremony and engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during the highly-publicized event. Discussion of Proposed Rule On Saturday, August 9, 2008, the USS Sterett's Commissioning ceremony will be held at the South Locust Point Marine Terminal in Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland. The U.S. Navy's new Arleigh Burke class Aegis guided missile destroyer, DDG 104, will be berthed at the facility. The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone from 4 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 9, 2008, encompassing the waters of the Patapsco River, Middle Branch, from surface to bottom, by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 39°15′40″ N., 076°35′23″ W., thence to 39°15′24″ N., 076°35′18″ W., thence to 39°15′25″ N., 076°35′54″ W., thence to 39°15′43″ N., 076°35′58″ W., located approximately 1,600 yards east of the Hanover Street (SR-2) Bridge. This area includes certain waters of the Ferry Bar Channel and the Locust Point East and West Channels. Scheduled on a weekend during the summer in Baltimore, Maryland, the waterfront ceremony is expected to attract a large recreational boating fleet and will require that persons and vessels be kept at a safe distance from the USS Sterett during the event. No person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port Baltimore. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Baltimore via the Sector Baltimore Command Center by telephone at

(410)576-2693 or on marine band radio channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels will be on scene to control the movement of persons and vessels in the security zone and may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by other Federal, State and local agencies. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his or her designated representative. Regulatory Evaluation We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Executive Order 12866 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. There is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the zone. 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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Patapsco River, Middle Branch, from 4 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 9, 2008. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the security zone. The duration of the security zone will be limited to seven hours. Because the zone is of limited size and duration, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river. 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 proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order. 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. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . 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 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T08-0272 to read as follows: § 165.T08-0272 Security Zone; Patapsco River, Middle Branch, Baltimore, MD.

(a)*Location* . The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Patapsco River, Middle Branch, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 39°15′40″ N., 076°35′23″ W., thence to 39°15′24″ N., 076°35′18″ W., thence to 39°15′25″ N., 076°35′54″ W., thence to 39°15′43″ N., 076°35′58″ W., located approximately 1,600 yards east of the Hanover Street (SR-2) Bridge. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983.

(b)*Definitions* . As used in this section, for purposes of enforcing the security zone identified in paragraph

(a)of this section, *designated representative* means on-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by the Captain of the Port Baltimore.

(c)*Regulations* .

(1)All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 of this part.

(2)Entry into or remaining in the security zone described in paragraph

(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland or his or her designated representative.

(3)Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Baltimore at telephone number 410-576-2674 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel operating Coast Guard vessels may be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his or her designated representative.

(d)*Effective period* . This rule is effective from 4 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 9, 2008. Dated: April 10, 2008. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E8-8728 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313; FRL-8557-3] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to approve a revision of the California State Implementation Plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board on November 30, 2007. The revision would in part, and temporarily, relax a commitment to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds in Ventura County caused by the application of pesticides. EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. DATES: Any comments must arrive by *May 23, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. • *E-mail: chavira.raymond@epa.gov.* • *Mail or deliver:* Raymond Chavira (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Chavira, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

(415)947-4218, *chavira.raymond@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal A. What revisions did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this SIP element? C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision? III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision A. How is EPA evaluating the revision? B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria? IV. Public Comment and Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or “Act”), many parts of the country, including California's Ventura County, were designated as nonattainment for the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), which, at the time, was 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average. Under the Act, States with nonattainment areas were required to develop, adopt and submit SIP revisions that included sufficient control measures to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by deadlines also established in the Act. In response, in 1994, the State of California developed, adopted and submitted an ozone State Implementation Plan

(SIP)(“1994 Ozone SIP”) to provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all areas of California. As part of the 1994 Ozone SIP, California adopted a Pesticide Element that committed the State to reduce volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions resulting from the application of agricultural and structural pesticides in certain ozone nonattainment areas. For the Ventura County nonattainment area (Ventura), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(DPR)committed to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990 base year emissions by 2005. California further defined DPR's commitment in Ventura under the Pesticide Element in terms of VOC emissions reductions of 2.4 tons per day by 2005. 1 See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 and at 1187 (January 8, 1997); and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and 52.220(c)(236). In 1997, we approved the 1994 Ozone SIP, including the Pesticide Element. See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 (January 8, 1997). In today's document, we propose to approve a revision by California of the Pesticide Element for Ventura County. 2 1 Tonnage commitment is 2.37 tons per day per letter dated June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, including “Corrections to State and Local Measures” (Attachment A) and “Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets” (Attachment C). 2 Several environmental groups successfully sued the State of California for failure to adopt regulations necessary to achieve the VOC emissions reduction committed to under the Pesticide Element. See *El Comite* v. *Helliker,* 416 F. Supp. 2d 912 (E.D.Cal. 2006). The ensuing court order has led DPR to adopt a regulation that achieves all of the VOC emission reductions previously committed to for Ventura County beginning with the peak ozone season (May through October) in 2008. We are not taking action on DPR's regulation in today's action, but rather, are taking action on a revision of the Pesticide Element that, if finalized as proposed, will allow California to seek a modification to the court order followed by conforming changes to DPR's rule. Meanwhile, EPA has replaced the 0.12 ppm, 1-hour ozone NAAQS with 0.08 ppm, 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997). EPA has also designated all areas of the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In so doing, EPA designated Ventura County as nonattainment for ozone with a classification of “moderate” (69 FR 23889, April 30, 2004). On February 14, 2008, 3 California requested EPA to reclassify Ventura County from “moderate” to “serious” with a new attainment date of 2012. EPA has not taken action yet on the State's voluntary request to reclassify Ventura County to “serious,” but is mandated under the CAA to grant such request, and thus, is reviewing the subject SIP revision assuming that Ventura's classification for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will in the near future become “serious.” See CAA section 181(b)(3). Under EPA's phase I implementation rule for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, certain “applicable requirements” that applied under 1-hour ozone NAAQS planning requirements continue to apply to 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.900(f). The “Pesticide Element” is not one of the applicable requirements under our phase I rule for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS but represents, instead, a “discretionary” measure, which means that California may relax or repeal it through a SIP revision so long as generally applicable procedural and substantive requirements for such revisions are met. 3 See February 14, 2008 letter from CARB Executive Officer James Goldstene to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator. II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal A. What revisions did the State submit? Table 1 lists the revision we are proposing to approve with the dates that it was revised and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 1.—Submitted SIP Revision Proposed for Full Approval State agency SIP revision Amended Submitted CARB Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007) November 30, 2007 November 30, 2007. CARB's November 30, 2007 SIP revision submittal package includes the “Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007)” (“Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura”) as attachment 3 to Executive Order S-07-003. 4 The November 30, 2007 SIP revision submittal also includes a copy of CARB's Resolution 07-42, dated September 27, 2007, approving the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, and evidence of public participation including CARB's response to public comments and a public hearing held on September 27, 2007. 4 The Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura is also referred to as “Appendix H” because it was originally included as such for the Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan, but was subsequently pulled from that document for separate SIP processing. As noted above, under the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP, DPR committed to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions resulting from agricultural and structural pesticides in Ventura by 20 percent of the 1990 base year emissions, and by 2.4 tons per day, by 2005. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB commits to substitute specific “surplus” emissions reductions for a portion of the existing Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura. See Table 3 of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB reduces the amount of the substitution each year such that no substitution is made in year 2012 and thereafter, thus restoring the full VOC commitment under the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP. CARB cites California's on-going mobile source emission control program, which, in CARB's view, has achieved greater-than-expected VOC emissions reductions, as the source for the substitute VOC emissions reductions. B. Are there other versions of this SIP element? As discussed above, we approved the Pesticide Element, including the specific emissions reduction commitments, as part of the 1994 California Ozone SIP (62 **Federal Register** 1169-1170, January 8, 1997). We have yet to approve DPR's regulation implementing the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP and do not propose to do so as part of this action. C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted precursor emissions, VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), in the presence of sunlight under the influence of meteorological and topographical features of an area. California adopted the Pesticide Element as one of the commitments to help attain the ozone NAAQS in the State of California. As part of the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP, California adopted specific VOC emissions reduction commitments for Ventura County in support of the attainment demonstration for the ozone NAAQS in that area. California has now revised the Pesticide Element to reduce in part, and temporarily, the VOC emissions reduction commitments for Ventura County to avoid short-term, but potentially significant, economic losses by strawberry farmers and the potential for long-term loss of farmland to urban development. The State has submitted the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura to EPA for approval as a revision of the California SIP. III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision A. How is EPA evaluating the revision? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable and must not interfere with an area's progress towards attainment or any other requirement of the Act. See CAA sections 110(a), 110(l); see also CAA section 193 (antibacksliding requirements for pre-1990 control measures). CAA section 110(l) directs EPA to disapprove any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. CAA section 193 does not apply to this action because the Pesticide Element was not part of the pre-1990 California SIP and thus, a revision to the Pesticide Element does not modify a control requirement in effect before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria? CAA section 110(l) provides: “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title) or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” The term “reasonable further progress”

(RFP)is defined in section 7501 (CAA section 171) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” We interpret CAA section 110(l) as requiring EPA to ensure that the state, in seeking a revision to its SIP, does not impair its compliance with the statutory mandates applicable to the SIP. As noted above, under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB substitutes “surplus” VOC emissions reductions from California's mobile source emission control program for a portion of the State's VOC emissions reduction commitments from application of pesticides. Because emissions reductions from California's mobile source emissions control program are included in the baseline for 8-hour ozone planning purposes, we do not view the emissions reductions as “surplus” With respect to RFP and attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, we view the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura as simply a reduction in the State's emissions reduction commitments leading to an increase, albeit temporarily, in VOC emissions in Ventura relative to what otherwise would occur. Specifically, we view the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura as reducing the State's commitments by 1.3 tons per day in 2008, 1.0 tons per day in 2009, 0.7 tons per day in 2010, and 0.3 tons per day in 2011, and thereby allowing corresponding increases in VOC in those years. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, we note that there would be no reduction in the State's SIP commitment by year 2012 and thereafter. We have developed two tables to present the effects of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. Table 2 compares the emissions reduction commitments under the existing SIP with those that would exist under the Revised Pesticide Element and shows how CARB's substitutions link the two sets of emissions reduction commitments. Table 3 converts the emissions reduction commitments shown in Table 2 into corresponding VOC emissions estimates in Ventura County resulting from application of pesticides. As shown in Table 3, allowable VOC emissions under the different emissions reduction commitments would increase from 3.7 to 4.3 tons per day in 2008 under the Revised Pesticide Element from 2.4 to 3.0 tons per day under the existing Pesticide Element. The increase would decline in stages to the ultimate VOC emissions cap from this source category under the emissions reduction commitments of 2.5 (rounded from 2.45) tons per day in 2012. Table 2.—Commitments for VOC Emission Reductions (in Tons Per Day) From Pesticides Under the Existing SIP and Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura Year Pesticide element in existing SIP a 20 Percent reduction 1990 1991 Tonnage 2005 CARB substitution of VOC emission reductions under revised pesticide element Revised pesticide element b 20 Percent reduction 1990 1991 Tonnage 2005 2008 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 2009 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.4 2010 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.6 1.2 1.6 1.8 2011 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.3 1.5 1.9 2.1 2012+ 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.0 1.8 2.2 2.4 a The emissions reductions shown for 1990 and 1991 under the percent reduction commitment represent the differences between current VOC pesticide emissions (assumed to be the same as 2004, *i.e.* , 4.826 tpd) and 80 percent of 1990 (3.756 tpd) and 1991 ( *i.e.* , 3.293 tpd), respectively. DPR's September 29, 2007 memorandum from Terrell Barry, Ph.D., Research Scientist III, DPR, et al to John Sanders, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch, DPR is the source for 1990, 1991, and 2004 emissions estimates. The 1994 Ozone SIP anticipated that 1991 pesticide use records would be used to adjust emissions for 1990. It is not clear whether DPR's September 29, 2007 VOC emissions estimates for 1990 or 1991 reflect the calculation method described in the 1994 Ozone SIP. b Calculated by subtracting CARB's substitution from the emission reduction commitments in the Pesticide Element of the Existing SIP. Table 3.—VOC Emissions From Application of Pesticides in Ventura County Under Existing SIP Commitments and Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura Year Pesticide element in existing SIP a 20 Percent reduction 1990 1991 Tonnage 2005 CARB substitution of VOC emission reductions under revised pesticide element Revised pesticide element b 20 Percent reduction 1990 1991 Tonnage 2005 2008 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.3 4.3 3.9 3.8 2009 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.0 4.0 3.6 3.5 2010 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.6 3.6 3.2 3.1 2011 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.3 3.3 2.9 2.8 2012+ 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.0 3.0 2.6 2.5 a The emissions estimates shown in these columns subtract the emission reduction commitments shown in Table 2 under the existing SIP with emissions estimated for 2004 (and assumed for planning purposes by California thereafter until 2012, *i.e.* , 4.82 tpd). See page C-2 of the Final Draft Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2008). b Calculated by adding CARB substitutions to the VOC emissions estimates for pesticides under the existing SIP. Thus, the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have an impact on air quality in the short term as it would slow down slightly the improvement in ozone levels as compared to fully achieving the commitments for pesticide emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP. However, the revision phases out over four years ensuring that it would not interfere with Ventura's ability to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the serious area deadline in 2012. In 2012, the emissions reduction commitments are 2.4 tpd (rounded from 2.37). For ozone, the Revised Pesticide Element would not affect attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the revision would be phased-out by 2012. In other words, under the Revised Pesticide Element, the emissions reduction commitments under the 1994 Ozone SIP would be fully restored by 2012. Therefore, our approval of the revision would not interfere with Ventura's attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The only remaining question with respect to ozone is whether the Revised Pesticide Element would interfere with 8-hour ozone RFP. Ventura has completed its Final Draft 8-hour ozone SIP, including an RFP plan, 5 demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the “serious” area deadline. The RFP plan includes an air quality analysis that demonstrates RFP toward attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS without the attribution of VOC emission reductions from pesticides. Based on the air quality analysis contained in the RFP plan, Ventura meets the RFP milestone year reductions and the three percent contingency requirements for “serious” areas in 2008, 2011, and 2012 with a combination of VOC and NO X reductions. The State adjusted the milestone year emissions for local and state control measures already adopted through December 31, 2006. These adjustments do not include any adjustment for VOC emission reductions from pesticides. 6 5 See Ventura County Air Pollution Control District “Final Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan”, March 2008, pp. 71-74, included in the docket for this proposed rule. 6 For all milestone years, the RFP plan assumes 4.82 tons per day from pesticides. In contrast, if the RFP plan had relied on emission reductions commitments in the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP or the Revised Pesticide Element proposed for approval herein, the VOC emissions from this source category would have ranged from 2.5 tons per year to 4.3 tons per day depending upon specific commitment and year. See Table 3 of this document. EPA approved Ventura's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 1169). EPA's final 8-hour ozone RFP rule does not require serious and above 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with approved 15 percent rate-of-progress VOC plans for the 1-hour ozone standard to do another 15 percent VOC-only reduction for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March 24, 2008). Rather, those areas must reduce VOC and/or NO X emissions by an average of three percent per year for the first six-year period following the baseline year plus all remaining three-year periods out to their attainment dates. Therefore the RFP plan includes a combination of VOC and NO X reductions. The RFP plan also includes transport contributions from the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin within 100 kilometers of Ventura. The State followed guidance in EPA's fine particulate matter Implementation Rule for crediting VOC and NO X reductions from outside the nonattainment area for RFP purposes. 7 See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March 24, 2008). 7 See Harnett-Zaw-Mon RFP memo, October 11, 2007. This SIP revision only concerns VOC emissions. Emissions of VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone. Therefore, given that Ventura is unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS other than ozone, 8 we conclude non-interference of the SIP revision with continued attainment of NAAQS other than ozone 9 in Ventura. 8 EPA has promulgated NAAQS for the following pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ozone and sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide), see 40 CFR 50. 9 The applicable ozone NAAQS is the 8-hour standard. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked effective June 25, 2005, see 70 FR 44470. Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements for attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and is thus approvable under CAA section 110(l). IV. Public Comment and Final Action Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, we are proposing to approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, submitted to EPA on November 30, 2007 by CARB. We intend to defer final action on this proposed approval until we receive a SIP revision submittal from California containing the final 8-hour ozone Ventura RFP Plan. We will consider the final plan and any related public comments on the plan, as well as comments on this proposal, before we take final action on the Pesticide Element SIP Revision. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this Action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 15, 2008. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-8812 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138, FRL-8557-2] RIN 2060-AO99 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act to clarify combustion control device compliance requirements, certain storage tank control compliance dates, and vapor balance system monitoring requirements. In addition, EPA is correcting typographical errors found in the July 28, 2006, final rule amendments notice. DATES: *Comments.* Written comments must be received on or before June 9, 2008. *Public Hearing.* If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by May 5, 2008, a public hearing will be held on May 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138, by mail to Air and Radiation Docket (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the contact persons listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *General and Technical Information:* Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone:

(919)541-5397, facsimile number:

(919)685-3195, e-mail address: *shedd.steve@epa.gov.* *Compliance Information:* Ms. Marcia Mia, Office of Compliance, Air Compliance Branch (2223A), EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone:

(202)564-7042, facsimile number:

(202)564-0050, e-mail address: *mia.marcia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?* This document proposes to take action on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline) (OLD NESHAP). We are proposing to amend the OLD NESHAP to clarify the applicable compliance dates for certain work practice standards for storage tanks and correct typographical errors found in the July 28, 2006, final rule amendments notice. We have published a parallel direct final rule in the Regulations and Rules section of this **Federal Register** because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment and no request for a public hearing on the parallel direct final rule, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw that portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out in the direct final rule, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document. *Regulated Entities.* Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS* code Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 325211, 325192, 325188, 32411, 49311, 49319, 48611, 42269, 42271 Operations at major sources that transfer organic liquids into or out of the plant site, including: Liquid storage terminals, crude oil pipeline stations, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and other manufacturing facilities with collocated OLD operations. Federal Government Federal agency facilities that operate any of the types of entities listed under the “industry” category in this table. * North American Industry Classification System. Considered to be the primary industrial codes for the plant sites with OLD operations. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13. *Public Hearing.* Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:

(919)541-7946, e-mail address: *eck.janet@epa.gov,* at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this rule by May 5, 2008, this hearing will be cancelled without further notice. *Worldwide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network

(TTN)policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.* The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The proposed rule amendments will not impose any new requirements on small entities, and, therefore, will have no significant adverse economic impact on subject small entities. The Administrator certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 16, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-8811 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 216 RIN 0750-AF90 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Limitations on DoD Non-Commercial Time-and-Materials Contracts (DFARS Case 2007-D021) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address review and documentation requirements with regard to the use of time-and-materials contracts for the acquisition of non-commercial services. The proposed rule provides for the same level of review for both commercial and non-commercial DoD time-and-materials contracts. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 23, 2008, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2007-D021, using any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2007-D021 in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 703-602-7887. *Mail:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Sandra Morris, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (CPF), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Morris, 703-602-0296. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 16.601(d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)requires that, before using a time-and-materials contract, the contracting officer must prepare a determination and findings that no other contract type is suitable. For time-and-materials contracts for commercial services, FAR 12.207(b)(2) specifies the minimum content for the determination and findings, and FAR 12.207(c) contains additional requirements with regard to the use of indefinite-delivery contracts priced on a time-and-materials basis. To provide for the same level of oversight in the award of all DoD time-and-materials contracts, this proposed rule amends DFARS 216.601 to establish determination and findings requirements for DoD non-commercial time-and-materials contracts, similar to those presently required by FAR 12.207 for commercial services contracts. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the proposed rule relates to internal DoD review and documentation requirements with regard to the selection of contract type. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2007-D021. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 216 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 216 as follows: PART 216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 216 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 2. Section 216.601 is amended by adding paragraph

(d)to read as follows: 216.601 Time-and-materials contracts.

(d)*Limitations.*

(i)The determination and findings shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify that no other contract type is suitable. At a minimum, the determination and findings shall—

(A)Include a description of the market research conducted;

(B)Establish that it is not possible at the time of placing the contract or order to accurately estimate the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of certainty;

(C)Establish that the requirement has been structured to minimize the use of time-and-materials requirements (e.g., limiting the value or length of the time-and-materials portion of the contract or order; establishing fixed prices for portions of the requirement); and

(D)Describe the actions planned to minimize the use of time-and-materials contracts on future acquisitions for the same requirements.

(ii)For indefinite-delivery contracts, the contracting officer shall—

(A)Structure contracts that authorize time-and-materials orders to also authorize orders on a cost-reimbursement, incentive, or fixed-price basis, to the maximum extent practicable; and

(B)Execute the determination and findings for— *(1)* Each order placed on a time-and-materials basis if the indefinite-delivery contract also authorizes orders on a cost-reimbursement, incentive, or fixed-price basis; or *(2)* The basic contract if the indefinite-delivery contract only authorizes time-and-materials orders. The determination and findings shall— *(i)* Contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify why orders on a cost-reimbursement, incentive, and fixed-price basis are not practicable; and *(ii)* Be approved one level above the contracting officer. [FR Doc. E8-8697 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 246, 252 and Chapter 2 RIN 0750-AF88 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Quality Assurance Authorization of Shipment of Supplies (DFARS Case 2005-D024) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise the criteria under which the contract administration office may permit a contractor to release supplies for shipment without Government authorization of the shipping documents. The proposed changes will enable the Government to provide for the appropriate level of contract quality assurance at source, based on product complexity and criticality and the contractor's record of quality control. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 23, 2008, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2005-D024, using any of the following methods: ○ *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. ○ *E-mail: dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2005-D024 in the subject line of the message. ○ *Fax:* 703-602-7887. ○ *Mail:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. ○ *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 703-602-0302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background This proposed rule amends DFARS 246.471 to provide for contractor release of supplies for shipment, without Government authorization of the shipping documents, based on criteria that consider product complexity and criticality and the contractor's record of quality control. In addition, changes are proposed to DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report. Since DoD forms are not published in the **Federal Register** or the Code of Federal Regulations, the proposed changes to DD Form 250 do not appear in the amendatory portion of this proposed rule, but are described as follows: The statements in Blocks 21a and 21b (Contract Quality Assurance) of DD Form 250 are proposed to be changed, from “CQA/ACCEPTANCE of listed items has been made by me or under my supervision and they conform to contract, except as noted herein or on supporting documents”, to “CQA/ACCEPTANCE has been subject to Government contract quality assurance surveillance”. The proposed changes provide for the representative signing the DD Form 250 at source to affirm that the appropriate quality assurance activities have been accomplished. The clause at DFARS 252.246-7000, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, is amended to specify that a contractor's submission of a receiving report constitutes the contractor's affirmation that the items listed on the report conform to contract requirements. The existing DD Form 250 is available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/formsprogram.htm.* This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the proposed rule primarily relates to the allocation of Government resources to quality assurance functions. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2005-D024. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 246 and 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 246 and 252 and Appendix F to Chapter 2 as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 246 and 252 and Appendix F to subchapter I continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE 2. Section 246.471 is amended as follows: a. By removing paragraph (a)(4); and b. By revising paragraph

(b)heading and paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 246.471 Authorizing shipment of supplies.

(b)*Alternative Procedures-Contractor Release for Shipment.*

(1)The contract administration office may authorize, in writing, the contractor to release supplies for shipment when— (i)(A) Products are non-complex or non-critical;

(B)Conformance will be validated by periodic assessments; and

(C)The contractor has a record of satisfactory quality; or (ii)(A) Products are complex or critical;

(B)The authorization of the shipping papers by a representative of the contract administration office prevents expediency of shipment;

(C)The Government performs a systematic and continuing evaluation of the contractor's control of quality; and

(D)The contractor has a record of satisfactory quality, including that pertaining to preparation for shipment. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. Section 252.246-7000 is amended by revising the clause date and adding paragraph

(c)to read as follows: 252.246-7000 Material Inspection and Receiving Report. Material Inspection and Receiving Report (XXX 2008)

(c)When submitting the receiving report (whether using DD Form 250 or WAWF), the Contractor is affirming that the items listed on the report conform to contract requirements, except as otherwise noted on the report. Appendix F—Material Inspection and Receiving Report 4. Appendix F to chapter 2 is amended in Part 3, Section F-301, by revising paragraphs (b)(21)(i) and (ii), paragraph (b)(21)(iv)(A) introductory text, and paragraph (b)(21)(v)(B) introductory text to read as follows: *F-301 Preparation instructions* .

(b)* * *

(21)* * *

(i)The words “subject to Government contract quality assurance surveillance” contained in the printed statements in Blocks 21a and 21b relate to quality and to the quantity of the items on the report. Do not modify the statements. Enter notes taking exception in Block 16 or on attached supporting documents with an appropriate block cross-reference.

(ii)When a shipment is authorized under alternative release procedures (see 246.471(b)), the contractor shall attach or include the appropriate signed certificate on the top copy of the DD Form 250 copies distributed to the payment office or attach or include the appropriate contractor certificate on the contract administration office copy when contract administration (Block 10 of the DD Form 250) is performed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

(iv)* * *

(A)The authorized Government representative shall—

(v)* * *

(B)When CQA and acceptance or acceptance is at destination, the authorized Government representative shall— [FR Doc. E8-8696 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 600 [Docket No. 070920529-8571-02] RIN 0648-AW05 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Limited Access Privilege Programs; Individual Fishing Quota Referenda Guidelines and Procedures for the New England Fishery Management Council and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed guidelines and procedures; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS proposes guidelines and procedures for the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) (collectively the Councils), and NMFS to follow in determining procedures and voting eligibility requirements for referenda on Individual Fishing Quota

(IFQ)program proposals. The intended effect of these procedures and guidance is to ensure IFQ program referenda are fair and equitable. DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action, may be obtained from the mailing address listed here or by calling Robert Gorrell, NMFS-SF, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW05, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* • Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Robert Gorrell. • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Attn: IFQ Referenda Guidelines, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 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: Robert Gorrell, at 301-713-2341 or via e-mail at *robert.gorrell@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies general requirements for Limited Access Privilege

(LAP)programs implemented in U.S. marine fisheries. A LAP is defined as a Federal limited access permit that provides a person the exclusive privilege to harvest a specific portion of a fishery's total allowable catch. This definition encompasses exclusive harvesting privileges allocated to participants under IFQ programs. Section 303A(c)(6)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines specific requirements for IFQ program proposals developed by the NEFMC and GMFMC. Specifically, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires such program proposals be approved through referenda before they may be submitted for review and implementation by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary publish guidelines and procedures to determine procedures and voting eligibility requirements for IFQ program referenda and to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner. A referendum conducted on a NEFMC IFQ program proposal must be approved by more than 2/3 of those voting in the referendum among eligible permit holders and other eligible voters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary promulgate criteria to determine whether additional fishery participants are eligible to vote in NEFMC IFQ program referenda in order to ensure that crew members who derive a significant percentage of their total income from a proposed IFQ fishery are eligible to participate in an IFQ referendum conducted in association with the program proposal. A referendum conducted on a GMFMC IFQ program proposal must be approved by a majority of those voting in the referendum. For Gulf of Mexico fisheries managed with multispecies permits, the Magnuson-Stevens Act limits eligible referenda voters to those permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the proposed IFQ program. This action proposes procedures for initiating, conducting, and deciding IFQ program referenda, as well as guidelines for specifying referenda voting eligibility requirements. These procedures and guidelines are intended to ensure referenda conducted on IFQ program proposals are fair and equitable, while providing the NEFMC and GMFMC the flexibility to define IFQ program referenda voting eligibility requirements on a fishery-specific basis within the constraints of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. These proposed procedures and guidelines also would apply to referenda conducted in association with any IFQ program proposal advanced through a Secretarial fishery management plan

(FMP)or FMP amendment under the authority of Section 304(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for a New England or Gulf of Mexico fishery. Any Secretarial IFQ program proposal must be approved by a majority of the voting members, present and voting, of the appropriate Council before it can be included in a Secretarial FMP or FMP amendment. Initiating Referenda For the Council to initiate an IFQ referendum, these proposed guidelines and procedures would require the NEFMC or GMFMC to submit a request to NMFS by letter. The referendum initiation letter must include recommended eligibility criteria for voting in the referendum, rationale for the recommendation, and any other information that may be needed consistent with applicable law and the referenda guidelines and procedures; for example, alternatives to the recommendation and supporting analyses of the alternatives. Any referendum initiation letter submitted by the NEFMC must also include recommended criteria for determining whether additional fishery participants, including crew members, are eligible to vote in the referendum. Specifically, NEFMC's initiation letters must include a recommendation for the percentage of a crew member's total income that, if earned in the proposed IFQ fishery, would be considered significant. Any referendum initiation letter submitted by the GMFMC for a fishery managed with multispecies permits must also include recommended criteria for defining those permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the proposed IFQ program. Following a referendum that has failed to approve the IFQ proposal, any request from a Council for a new referendum in the same fishery must include an explanation of the substantive changes to the proposed IFQ program or the changes of circumstances in the fishery that would warrant initiation of an additional referendum. A Council may not submit a referendum initiation letter to NMFS until:

(1)The Council has held public hearings on the IFQ program proposal that is the subject of the referendum initiation letter;

(2)the Council has considered public comments on the proposal; and

(3)the Council has selected preferred alternatives for the proposal. NMFS is considering alternative approaches to the timing of the IFQ referendum initiation letter relative to a Council's procedure for development of the IFQ program proposal and FMP or FMP Amendment. The proposed action provides for a somewhat compressed referendum schedule by allowing the initiation request to be submitted after the Council has solicited and considered public input on an IFQ program proposal and selected preferred alternatives for the proposal. An alternative approach would require that the Council's FMP or FMP amendment document be complete, all public comment be considered and analyzed, and but for the requirement to conduct the referendum, the document be ready for submission to NMFS, before the referendum initiation request may be submitted. Voter Eligibility Voter eligibility requirements recommended by the Councils must provide for fair and equitable referenda. When developing recommended voter eligibility criteria, Councils must consider the following factors:

(1)The full range of entities likely to be eligible for initial allocations under the proposed IFQ program;

(2)current and historic harvest and participation in the proposed IFQ fishery; and

(3)any other factors determined by the Council to be relevant. When determining whether certain crew members may be eligible to vote in NEFMC IFQ program referenda, the Council must consider, at least, the following factors:

(1)A crew member's history of participation in the fishery aboard a referendum-eligible vessel;

(2)the economic value of and employment practices in the proposed IFQ fishery and other economic and social factors that would help determine what percentage of a crew member's total income from the fishery should be considered significant; and

(3)the availability of documentary proof of employment and income to validate eligibility. For the purposes of this action, “referendum-eligible vessel” means a vessel, the permit holder or owner of which has been determined to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the basis of such vessel's history or other characteristics meeting the prescribed voter eligibility criteria. To be eligible to vote in a NEFMC IFQ program referendum, crew members, at a minimum:

(1)Must have worked aboard a referendum-eligible vessel at sea while engaged in fishing;

(2)must produce documentary proof of income and employment or service as a crew member during the eligibility periods proposed by the NEFMC (if requested);

(3)must have derived a percentage of his/her income from the fishery under the proposed IFQ program that is equal to or greater than the percentage determined to be significant relative to the economic value and employment practices of the fishery during the qualifying periods proposed by the NEFMC; and

(4)must meet any additional eligibility criteria promulgated by NMFS. These criteria would limit eligibility of crew members to those who have worked aboard referendum-eligible vessels. If a vessel's activity in a fishery is considered by the NEFMC to be too little or dated to warrant the permit holder's participation in the referendum, it is unreasonable to allow crew members to derive eligibility from their work on that vessel. Also, this requirement would prevent the possibility of referendum-ineligible permit holders from influencing the referendum through their subordinate associates. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to provide for the possibility of other fishery participants, including crew members, to participate in NEFMC IFQ program referenda creates the challenge of verifying whether these individuals meet voter eligibility criteria. NMFS has records on the history of Federal fishery permits and landings, but has little information on crew member participation in fisheries. NMFS does have contact information for those crew members that have vessel operator permits, but NMFS does not collect information on individuals who serve aboard a fishing vessel as crew or in any other capacity or on the income of crew members. Nor does NMFS have historical data of this nature. To address this problem, NMFS is proposing to include the availability of employment and income documentation as a factor the NEFMC must consider when developing recommended referendum voter eligibility criteria. Specifically, the NEFMC must consider whether documentation of service onboard a vessel as crew or in other capacities exists, and to what extent the availability of documentation should affect voter eligibility. The NEFMC may consider similar documentation limitations when evaluating the percentage of an individual 's total income generated by the proposed IFQ fishery. NMFS acknowledges the dearth of information and the irregularity of documentation in this component of the fishery. While the NEFMC may recommend and NMFS may require crew members to provide verifiable documentation as proof of meeting the voter eligibility criteria established for any given IFQ program referendum, this proposed action provides for the possibility of allowing fishery participants to certify on referendum ballots that they meet the voter eligibility criteria. Self-certification would consist of a signature attesting to one's meeting the stated criteria, and participants would be subject to prosecution for any false statements made on official forms. NMFS interprets the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to ensure that certain crew members engaged in NEFMC fisheries are eligible to vote in IFQ program referenda to mean that NEFMC IFQ program referenda must provide for participation by eligible crew members. A Council may consider criteria for weighting eligible referendum votes. Section 303A(c)(6)(D) does not explicitly mention vote weighting, but the sections's legislative history gives the example of weighting votes in Gulf of Mexico fisheries by the quantity of fish authorized to be harvested under the permits of those voting (e.g., 200 pounds per day or 2,000 pounds per day). If a Council recommends such criteria in a letter requesting initiation of a referendum, it should fully describe in the letter its rationale and the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum. NMFS will give consideration to the reasons for the proposed criteria to determine whether they are consistent with the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards. Ensuring Referenda Are Fair and Equitable The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to conduct IFQ program referenda in a fair and equitable manner. Every component of these proposed procedures and guidelines supports NMFS's compliance with that requirement. Council recommendations for voter eligibility criteria would be developed through public processes, along with any alternatives and supporting analyses or other information required by applicable law and provided in the Councils' referendum initiation letters. If NMFS finds the referendum voter eligibility criteria recommended by a Council would not provide for a fair and equitable referendum, or that they would not be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, then NMFS would deny the Council's request to conduct an IFQ program referendum and would inform the Council of the agency's finding, including reasons for the finding. The Council could then modify the voter eligibility criteria and supporting analyses to address NMFS's finding, and submit another referendum initiation letter to NMFS. In assessing whether Council recommendations for referenda criteria are fair and equitable, NMFS, at a minimum, would be required to take into account:

(1)Whether the criteria are rationally connected to or further the objectives of the proposed IFQ program;

(2)whether the criteria are designed in such a way to prevent any person or other entity from obtaining an excessive share of voting privileges;

(3)whether the criteria are reasonable relative to the availability of documentary evidence and the possibility of validating a participant's eligibility; and

(4)whether the referendum can be administered and executed fairly and equitably within a reasonable amount of time and without subjecting industry members, the Council, or NMFS to administrative burdens, costs, or other requirements that would be considered onerous. No voting eligibility criteria may differentiate among U.S. citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations on the basis of their state of residence. The Council should analyze the relative benefits and hardships imposed by the voter eligibility criteria, and compare their consequences with those of alternative voter eligibility criteria. Rulemaking to implement fishery-specific IFQ referenda must describe the internal measures NMFS shall use to ensure referenda ballots are properly distributed, evaluated, and counted, and the procedures used to conduct the referenda are fair and equitable. Referenda ballots would be considered by NMFS as fishery information submitted to NMFS and subject to the confidentiality provisions and limitations of section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations in 50 CFR 600 subpart E. Conducting Referenda NMFS would initiate rulemaking to implement an IFQ program referendum as soon as practicable after receiving a Council's referendum initiation letter and finding the referendum can be conducted in a fair and equitable manner. The proposed schedules, procedures, and voter eligibility requirements associated with fishery-specific referenda would be published as proposed rules in the **Federal Register** for public comment. Final fishery-specific referenda procedures and guidelines would be implemented through final rules published in the **Federal Register** . The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to conduct referenda on NEFMC and GMFMC IFQ program proposals as ultimately developed. NMFS interprets this provision to mean that NMFS may not publish a final rule implementing fishery-specific referenda procedures and guidelines until the Council determines the IFQ proposal and supporting analyses are complete and ready for Secretarial review. NMFS would inform the Council and the public through the **Federal Register** if the agency decided not to conduct a referendum, as proposed, including reasons for the decision. NMFS would provide each eligible voter a referendum ballot and would make available associated explanatory information concerning the referendum schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements. NMFS may require individuals who wish to vote as other fishery participants in NEMFC IFQ program referenda to provide certain documentation and certifications in order to receive a referendum ballot. Referenda ballots must be signed by eligible voters and received by NMFS by the specified deadline. Ballots received after the specified deadline would not be considered valid or evaluated in deciding the outcome of the referendum. NMFS interprets the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for permit holders to submit a ballot for each permit held. *Deciding Referenda* NMFS would evaluate and count referenda ballots and announce referenda results within 60 days of the date by which completed ballots must be received. For a NEFMC IFQ referendum to be approved, more than 2/3 of those voting in a referendum of eligible permit holders and others must vote in favor of the measure. For a GMFMC IFQ referendum to be approved, a majority of those voting must vote in favor of the referendum. If NMFS determines an IFQ referendum to be approved, then the Council may submit the associated FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. If NMFS determines an IFQ referendum to have failed, then the Council may not submit the FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review. However, the Council may modify its IFQ program proposal and request a new referendum on the modified proposal. Any changes made to an IFQ program proposal that was reviewed by eligible voters through a referendum may invalidate the referendum and require the modified IFQ program proposal to be reviewed and approved through a subsequent referendum before the Council could submit the proposal for Secretarial review and implementation. Classification These proposed guidelines and procedures are published under the authority of, and consistent with, the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This proposed action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that, for a proposed rule, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)be prepared unless it is determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS believes it may be appropriate to make a determination that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, but is interested in receiving comments on whether it would be appropriate to make such a certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared for this action, and NMFS will consider any comments received when deciding whether to make this certification at the final rule stage. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. Copies of this analysis are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The proposed action would establish guidelines and procedures mandated by Section 303A(c)(6)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for referenda on all Individual Fishing Quota

(IFQ)program proposals (with the exception of an IFQ program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery) to be developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Those future IFQ program proposals must be approved by referenda before they may be submitted for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The proposed action contains guidelines and procedures

(1)to determine procedures and voting eligibility, and

(2)to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner. At the same time, it would provide the Councils the flexibility to define IFQ program referenda voting eligibility requirements on a fishery-specific basis within the constraints of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Small Business Administration

(SBA)has defined small entities as all fish harvesting businesses that are independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and with annual receipts of $4 million or less. In addition, processors with 500 or fewer employees for related industries involved in canned and cured fish and seafood, or preparing fresh fish and seafood, are also considered small entities. Because it would apply to all entities affected by NE or GOM proposal for an IFQ fishery, regardless of size, the proposed rule imposes no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities. Using the best available information, the number and description of small entities that could be affected by the proposed action includes approximately 8,300 permit holders in Gulf of Mexico fisheries, including those who hold 1,800 commercial shrimp permits, 1,500 commercial king mackerel permits, 1,450 commercial Spanish mackerel permits, 1,350 for-hire coastal migratory pelagic permits, 9,00 commercial reef fish permits, and 1,310 for-hire reef fish permits. Approximately 14,200 captains or crew members were employed in New England states (ME, NH, MA, RI, and CT) in New England fisheries for the calendar year 2005. In addition, approximately 9,900 Mid-Atlantic residents (NY, NH, DE, MD, VA, and NC) were captains or crew members in New England fisheries for the calendar year 2005. In total, assuming future levels of employment are similar to employment in 2005, as many as 24,000 captains or crew members could be affected by this proposed rule. Given that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the agency provide this referenda guidance, NMFS was unable to identify any significant alternatives that could meet the statutory requirements, yet minimize burdens on small entities. NMFS specifically invites public comment on this aspect of the rule. This proposed action would merely provide guidance and set out procedures for subsequent rules and thus does not impose any direct economic impact. However, the intangible benefits of ensuring that IFQ referenda are conducted in a fair and equitable manner are believed considerable. On the other hand, because the proposed action stipulates that permit holders and other fishery participants must meet voter eligibility criteria recommended by the Council and promulgated by NMFS regulations, future referenda criteria may limit voter eligibility and would thereby adversely impact some small business entities (e.g., certain crew members may be ineligible to vote in a future NEFMC IFQ program referendum). While the program is expected to provide a net benefit, this is not quantifiable until fishery-specific IFQ referenda are proposed because the proposed action only conveys broad guidance. Detailed analysis of data and impacts on vessels, vessel revenues, port revenues, fish stock impacts, etc. are not possible in the absence of identifying specific fisheries and IFQ program proposal components. Estimated direct economic impacts would be evaluated in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and other applicable Federal law at the time fishery-specific program proposals are developed. IFQ program referenda conducted under section 303A(c)(6)(D)(iv) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 17, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 1. Under part 600, add subpart O to read as follows: Subpart O—Limited Access Privilege Programs Sec. 600.1300 [Reserved] 600.1301 [Reserved] 600.1302 [Reserved] 600.1303 [Reserved] 600.1304 [Reserved] 600.1305 [Reserved] 600.1306 [Reserved] 600.1307 [Reserved] 600.1308 [Reserved] 600.1309 [Reserved] 600.1310 Referenda. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Subpart O—Limited Access Privilege Programs § 600.1310 Referenda.

(a)*Purpose and scope.* This section establishes procedures and guidelines for referenda to be conducted on Individual Fishing Quota

(IFQ)program proposals initiated by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), and NMFS. This section provides guidance on developing voter eligibility criteria and establishes general procedures to ensure referenda are conducted in a fair and equitable manner.

(b)*Initiating IFQ Referenda.*

(1)The NEFMC and the GMFMC shall not submit, and the Secretary shall not approve, an FMP or FMP amendment that would establish an IFQ program until the IFQ program proposal, as ultimately developed, has been approved by a referendum of eligible voters. Paragraph

(h)of this section provides criteria for determining the outcome of IFQ referenda.

(2)To initiate a referendum on a proposed IFQ program:

(i)The Council must have held public hearings on the FMP or FMP amendment in which the IFQ program is proposed;

(ii)The Council must have considered public comments on the proposed IFQ program proposal;

(iii)The Council must have selected preferred alternatives for the proposed IFQ program;

(iv)The chair of the Council with jurisdiction over such proposed IFQ fishery must request a referendum on the proposed IFQ program in a letter to the appropriate NMFS Regional Administrator; and

(v)The letter requesting initiation of a referendum must include, but is not limited to, recommended criteria for NMFS to use in determining who is eligible to vote in the referendum, and may also include recommended criteria for vote weighting. The letter must provide the rationale supporting the Council's recommendation, as well as such additional information and analyses as needed consistent with applicable law and these guidelines and procedures. If a Council recommends vote weighting criteria, the letter should fully describe the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum.

(vi)In addition to the requirements specified at paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)-(v) of this section, NEFMC referenda initiation letters must also include recommended criteria for NMFS to use in determining the eligibility of other fishery participants to vote in the referendum, including a criterion setting the minimum percentage of a crew member's total income that must have been earned in the proposed IFQ fishery. Guidelines for developing such recommendations are provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(vii)In addition to the requirements specified at paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)-(v) of this section, GMFMC letters initiating referenda of multispecies permit holders in the Gulf of Mexico must include recommended criteria to be used in identifying those permit holders who have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the proposed IFQ program, along with alternatives to the recommendation, and supporting analyses. Guidelines for developing such recommendations are provided at paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(3)Following a referendum that has failed to approve the IFQ proposal, any request from a Council for a new referendum in the same fishery must include an explanation of the substantive changes to the proposed IFQ program or the changes of circumstances in the fishery that would warrant initiation of an additional referendum.

(c)*Referenda voter eligibility* .—(1) *Permit holders and other fishery participants* .—

(i)To be eligible to vote in IFQ referenda, permit holders and other fishery participants must meet voter eligibility criteria recommended by the Council and promulgated by NMFS.

(ii)Holders of multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico must be determined to have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the IFQ program to be eligible to vote in a referendum on the proposed program.

(iii)When developing recommended criteria for determining which permit holders may participate in an IFQ program. referendum, the Councils must consider, but are not limited to considering:

(A)The full range of entities likely to be eligible to receive initial quota allocation under the proposed IFQ program;

(B)Current and historical harvest and participation in the fishery; and

(C)Other factors as may be determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and to the proposed IFQ program.

(2)*Crew member eligibility in NEFMC IFQ referenda* .—(i) For the purposes of these procedures and guidelines, “referendum-eligible vessel” means a vessel, the permit holder or owner of which has been determined to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the basis of such vessel's history or other characteristics meeting the prescribed voter eligibility criteria.

(ii)To be eligible to vote in an NEFMC IFQ referendum, crew members must meet the following eligibility requirements:

(A)The crew member must have worked aboard a referendum-eligible vessel at sea while engaged in fishing.

(B)If requested, the crew member must produce documentary proof of employment or service as a crew member and income during the eligibility periods established by the NEFMC. Documents may include, but are not limited to, signed crew contracts, records of payment, settlement sheets, income tax records, a signed statement from the permit holder, and other documents as evidence of the period and the vessel upon which the crew member worked.

(C)During the qualifying periods established by the NEFMC, the crew member must have derived a percentage of his/her total income from the fishery under the proposed IFQ program that is equal to or greater than the percentage promulgated by NMFS and determined to be significant relative to the economic value and employment practices of the fishery.

(D)Any additional eligibility criteria promulgated by the NMFS.

(iii)When developing recommended criteria for determining whether other fishery participants, including crew members, may participate in a NEFMC IFQ referendum, the NEFMC must consider, but is not limited to considering:

(A)The full range of entities likely to be eligible to receive initial quota under the proposed IFQ program;

(B)A crew member's current and historical participation in the fishery aboard a referendum-eligible vessel;

(C)The economic value of the proposed IFQ fishery, employment practices in the proposed IFQ fishery, and other economic and social factors that would bear on a determination of what percentage of a crew member's total income from the fishery should be considered significant for the purposes of this section;

(D)The availability of documentary proof of employment and income to validate eligibility; and

(E)Any other factors as may be determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and the proposed IFQ program.

(3)*GMFMC's substantially fished criterion.* When developing recommended criteria for identifying those multispecies permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the IFQ program proposal, the GMFMC must consider, but is not limited to considering:

(i)Current and historical harvest and participation in the fishery;

(ii)The economic value of and employment practices in the fishery; and

(iii)Any other factors determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and the proposed IFQ program.

(d)Council-recommended criteria under

(c)may include, but are not limited to, levels of participation or reliance on the fishery as represented by landings, sales, expenditures, or other considerations. A Council may also consider criteria for weighting eligible referendum votes. In its letter requesting initiation of a referendum, a Council should fully describe its rationale for any weighting recommendation and the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum.

(e)*Actions by NMFS: Review of Council referendum criteria and Secretarial IFQ plans.*

(1)NMFS shall determine whether Council recommended referendum criteria will provide for a fair and equitable referendum and will be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards. The Secretary's considerations shall include, but shall not be limited to:

(i)Whether the criteria are rationally connected to or further the objectives of the proposed IFQ program;

(ii)Whether the criteria are designed in such a way to prevent any person or single entity from obtaining an excessive share of voting privileges;

(iii)Whether the criteria are reasonable relative to the availability of documentary evidence and the possibility of validating a participant's eligibility; and

(iv)Whether the referendum can be administered and executed in a fair and equitable manner in a reasonable time and without subjecting industry members, the Council, or NMFS to administrative burdens, costs, or other requirements that would be considered onerous.

(2)If NMFS determines that referendum criteria would not provide for a fair and equitable referendum, would not be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, or, in the case of a referendum request subsequent to a failed referendum in the same fishery, that the Council has not substantively amended the IFQ proposal or circumstances have not changed sufficiently to warrant initiation of a new referendum, NMFS shall inform the Council of the agency's decision to deny the referendum request and of the reasons for the decision.

(3)If NMFS determines that referendum criteria would provide for a fair and equitable referendum and would be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, then NMFS shall conduct the referendum in accordance with procedures and guidelines provided in paragraph

(f)of this section.

(4)In accordance with paragraphs

(2)and (3), NMFS may initiate a referendum and promulgate referendum criteria for any IFQ program proposal advanced through a Secretarial fishery management plan

(FMP)or FMP amendment under the authority of Section 304(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for a New England or Gulf of Mexico fishery. Such criteria must provide for a fair and equitable referendum and NMFS shall conduct the referendum in accordance with procedures and guidelines provided in paragraph

(f)of this section.

(f)*Conducting IFQ referenda.*

(1)NMFS shall promulgate specific referenda procedural requirements, voter eligibility requirements, and any vote weighting criteria through appropriate rulemaking. A proposed rule shall seek public comment on the specific schedule, procedures, and other requirements for the referendum process.

(2)For NEFMC IFQ program referenda, the proposed rule shall establish procedures for documenting or certifying that other fishery participants, including crew members, meet the proposed voter eligibility criteria.

(3)For GMFMC IFQ program referenda of multispecies permit holders, the proposed rule shall include criteria to be used in identifying those permit holders who have substantially fished the species that are the subject of the proposed IFQ program.

(4)If NMFS decides to proceed with the referendum after reviewing public comments, NMFS shall publish implementing regulations through a final rule in the **Federal Register** as soon as practicable after the Council determines the IFQ program proposal and supporting analyses are complete and ready for Secretarial review. Otherwise, NMFS shall publish a notice in the **Federal Register** to inform the Council and the public of its decision not to conduct the referendum, as proposed, including reasons for the agency's decision.

(5)Upon implementation of the referendum through a final rule, NMFS shall provide eligible voters referenda ballots and shall make available information about the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum process and the proposed IFQ program.

(6)NMFS shall notify the public in the region of the subject fishery of the referendum eligibility criteria.

(7)Individuals who wish to vote as other fishery participants in a NEFMC IFQ referendum must contact NMFS and produce all required documentation and certifications to receive a ballot. NMFS shall provide sufficient time in the referendum process to allow for crew members to request, receive, and submit referendum ballots.

(g)*Referenda ballots.*

(1)Ballots shall be composed such that voters will indicate approval or disapproval of the preferred IFQ program proposal.

(2)NMFS may require voters to self-certify on referenda ballots that they meet voter eligibility criteria. To be considered valid, ballots that require such certification must be signed by the eligible voter.

(3)Referenda ballots shall be numbered serially or otherwise designed to guard against submission of duplicate ballots.

(4)NMFS shall allow at least 30 days for eligible voters to receive and return their ballots and shall specify a deadline by which ballots must be received. Ballots received after the deadline shall not be considered valid.

(h)*Determining the outcome of an IFQ referendum.*

(1)NMFS shall tally and announce the results of the referendum within 90 days of the deadline by which completed ballots must be received. NMFS may declare a referendum invalid if the agency can demonstrate the referendum was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established in the final rule implementing the referendum.

(2)A NEFMC IFQ program referendum shall be considered approved only if more than 2/3 of those voting submit valid ballots in favor of the referendum question.

(3)A GMFMC IFQ program referendum shall be considered approved only if a majority of those voting submit valid ballots in favor of the referendum question.

(i)*Council actions.*

(1)If NMFS notifies a Council that an IFQ program proposal has been approved through a referendum, then the Council may submit the associated FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review and implementation.

(2)Any changes that would modify an IFQ program proposal that was reviewed by referenda voters may invalidate the results of the referendum and require the modified program proposal to be approved through a new referendum before it can be submitted to the Secretary for review and implementation.

(3)If NMFS notifies a Council that an IFQ referendum has failed, then the Council may modify its IFQ program proposal and request a new referendum pursuant to paragraph

(b)of this section. [FR Doc. E8-8756 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 73 79 Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Form FNS-798 and FNS-798A, WIC Financial Management and Participation Report With Addendum AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 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 proposed information collections. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before June 23, 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Patricia N. Daniels, Director, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 520, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Joan Carroll at 703-305-2196 or via e-mail to *Joan.Carroll@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 518. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval, and will become a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection form and instructions should be directed to: Patricia N. Daniels,

(703)305-2749. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* WIC Financial Management and Participation Report with Addendum. *OMB Number:* 0584-0045. *Form Number:* FNS 798 and FNS 798A. *Expiration Date:* 07-31-2008. *Type of Request:* Revision of a Currently Approved Collection Form. *Abstract:* Section 17(f)(4) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(4)) provides that “State agencies shall submit monthly financial reports and participation data to the Secretary” (See also 7 CFR 246.25(b)(1)). The WIC Financial Management and Participation Report with Addendum (FNS-798 and FNS-798A) are the forms State agencies complete to comply with this requirement. FNS and State agencies use the reported information for program monitoring, funds management, budget projections, monitoring caseload, policy development, and responding to requests from Congress and interested parties. In addition, nonentitlement programs, such as the WIC Program, are required to conduct an annual closeout and reconciliation of grants. Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 3016.23(b) require that “[a] grantee must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 days after the end of the funding period (or as specified in a program regulation) to coincide with the submission of the annual Financial Status Report (SF-269).” WIC Program regulations at 7 CFR 246.17(b)(2) instruct State agencies to “submit to FNS, within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, final fiscal year closeout reports.” The final WIC Financial Management and Participation Report (FNS-798) submitted for the year with its addendum (FNS-798A) are used as a substitute for the SF-269, because they maintain the integrity of WIC's two grant components (food and nutrition services and administration (NSA)) as well as the four NSA grant components (program management, client services, nutrition education, and breastfeeding promotion and support). The proposed revision of the WIC Financial Management and Participation Report (FNS-798) and its addendum (FNS-798A) will:

(1)identify breastfeeding women and infant participants as either fully breastfeeding or partially breastfeeding,

(2)add columns corresponding to the 12 months of the fiscal year for the NSA cost section of the report,

(3)delete the requirement to separately report funds spent forward to the following year attributable to vendor and participant collections, and

(4)delete the requirement to report indirect cost rates and bases and the types of indirect cost rates. The revision to the participation categories is proposed so participation will correspond with revisions in participant food packages *(See Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages; Interim Rule, December 6, 2007).* The proposed columns in the NSA cost section will:

(1)Provide a computer-generated cumulative total of NSA costs rather than having the State agency compute and report this amount,

(2)make the NSA cost section consistent with the food cost and participation sections which already have columns for the 12 months, and

(3)make it easier for State agencies to correct reporting errors made in prior periods. State agencies do not need to separately report the amount of funds spent forward attributable to vendor, participant and local agency collections as this amount is evident based on other data elements. State agencies will continue to report the total amount charged to the grant for indirect costs. However, it is not necessary for them to report the factors used to calculate this amount. Instead, indirect cost calculations should be validated during an audit or financial management technical assistance review. Due to the increase in the number of WIC State agencies reporting and a decrease in the number of responses per respondent, this revision is also an adjustment in the number of respondents from 89 to 90 and the number of responses per respondent from 17 to 15. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total annual burden on respondents was previously 4,713 hours. This revision decreases the total annual burden by 190 hours. *Respondents:* Directors or Administrators of WIC State agencies. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 90 respondents. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 15. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 4,523 hours. Dated: April 16, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8-8792 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food Stamp Program Redemption Certificate, Form FNS-278B and Food Stamp Program Wholesaler Redemption Certificate, Form FNS-278-4 AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA. 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 proposed information collections. The proposed collection is a revision of a currently approved collection. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Lindy Haffey, Acting Chief, Retailer Operations Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 403, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Lindy Haffey at

(703)305-2523 or via e-mail to: *brdhq-web@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 403. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget

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

(703)305-2523. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Food Stamp Redemption Certificate. *OMB Number:* 0584-0085. *Form Number:* FNS-278B and FNS-278-4. *Expiration Date:* July 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection of information. *Abstract:* The Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, Section 10, (7 U.S.C. 2019) states that regulations issued pursuant to the Act shall provide for the redemption of coupons accepted by retail food stores and wholesale food concerns or through selected financial institutions. FNS provides for this redemption in 7 CFR 278.2 through 278.5. Section 278.4 outlines the procedure for redeeming coupons for wholesale food concerns retail stores. Form FNS-278B, Food Stamp Redemption Certificate, and Form FNS-278-4, Wholesaler Redemption Certificates, collectively called RCs, are required to be used by all authorized wholesalers or retailers, and are processed by financial institutions when they are presented for cash or credit. Requirements in the Food Stamp Program regulations are the basis for the information collected on Form FNS-278B, Food Stamp Redemption Certificate, and Form FNS-278-4, Wholesaler Redemption Certificate. The proposed revision to the information collection burden associated with this form is derived from a reduction in the number of RCs submitted by program respondents. The number of responses also declined as FNS phased-out the issuance of paper food coupons; and as the number of States with Electronic Benefit Transfer

(EBT)systems increased nationwide. Currently, 100 percent of all food stamp benefits are issued electronically. Some paper food coupons remain in circulation, however, as they were issued before EBT was fully implemented in each of the States. Because there is not an expiration date on food coupons, recipients who were previously issued paper food coupons can use the benefits they have until they are spent. Likewise, retailers must also continue to accept paper food coupons as a form of payment, and the Federal government must continue to honor them as legal tender. Currently, there is a legislative proposal to de-obligate the paper food coupon but until legislation is passed, paper food coupons do not expire. FNS is seeking approval not to display the expiration date of the information collection because it is impractical and not cost efficient to incur expenses for a form that hasn't been used since our last submission to OMB (Form FNS-278-4), or for one thats use is rapidly declining (Form FNS-278B). There are no sensitive questions of private or personal nature involved in this information collection. All data collected concerns food stamp deposits within the banking system. For this information collection package, the estimated reduction of respondents is based on a projected decrease in the number of RCs submitted as a result of fewer paper food coupons remaining in circulation. The estimated burden hours are 28.60442 hours. *Respondents:* Businesses, wholesale food concerns, or other not-for-profit financial institutions. *Estimated Average Number of Respondents:* 385.95723. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 4.3033369. *Estimated Total Average Annual Responses:* 1,660.904. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .0172222 hours per response. *Estimated Total Average Annual Burden:* 28.660442 hours. Dated: April 14, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8-8835 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on May 15, 2008 at The Chateau, 955 Fairway Blvd. Incline Village, NV 89451. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary. DATES: The meeting will be held May 15, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Chateau, 955 Fairway Blvd. Incline Village, NV 89451 *For Further Information or To Request an Accommodation (one week prior to meeting date) Contact:* Aria Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150,

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

(1)Final recommendations for Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) Round 9 Capital projects and Science and Research themes;

(2)a public hearing on the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committees' SNPLMA Round 9 recommendations; and,

(3)written public comment received during the comment period will be shared. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above. Dated: April 15, 2008. Eli Ilano, Deputy Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-8627 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service State of Alaska—Termination of Withdrawal SUMMARY: The Act of March 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 119) withdrew approximately 3,235 acres of land within the Cascade Creek watershed of the Tongass National Forest as a municipal watershed for the City and Borough of Sitka. The Act provided that the withdrawal would terminate upon a finding by the Secretary of Agriculture of an abandonment and nonuse for a period of two years. With the concurrence of the City and Borough of Sitka, a finding of such abandonment and nonuse is being made and the withdrawal terminated. DATES: This finding is effective on the date of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise Herrera, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC 20250. Phone:

(202)205-1255, E-mail: *lherrera@fs.fed.us.* Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Act of March 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 119), certain lands within the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska comprising approximately 3,235 acres in the watershed of Cascade Creek were withdrawn from all forms of location, entry or appropriation under the mineral and nonmineral land laws of the United States and were set aside as a municipal water supply reserve for the use and benefit of the City of Sitka. The Act further provides that the right of the City of Sitka to use the reserved land for watershed purposes shall terminate upon the abandonment of the use by such municipality upon a finding of the Secretary of Agriculture of such nonuse or abandonment for a period of two years. In such case, the reservation created by the Act shall terminate to the extent of the lands involved. The City and Borough of Sitka has notified the Forest Service by letter dated January 22, 2007, that it relinquishes any interests in the lands identified in the Cascade Creek. This relinquishment is a restatement of an earlier relinquishment dated December 23, 1996, but heretofore not acted upon. The City states that it has developed a primary municipal water supply from Blue Lake as well as a secondary emergency water supply from Indian River. Therefore, Cascade Creek is no longer needed for such purposes. Based on the foregoing, as authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 119), I find that the lands described in section 1 of said Act, comprising approximately 3,235 acres of the Cascade Creek watershed in the Tongass National Forest, have not been used for a period of at least 2 years by the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, and that the City and Borough have effectively abandoned such use as indicated by letters to the Forest Service dated December 23, 1996 and January 22, 2007. Therefore, the reservation established by said Act of March 22, 1944 is hereby terminated. Dated: April 9, 2008. Paul K. Brewster, Deputy Regional Forester. [FR Doc. E8-8704 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary [Agency Docket Number: 080402504-8505-01] Availability of Fleet Alternative Fuel Vehicle Report for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of report. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, this notice announces the availability of the Department of Commerce's

(DOC)alternative fuel vehicle

(AFV)report for fiscal year 2007 for its agency fleet. This report includes data concerning DOC's efforts to reduce energy consumption. ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of Administrative Services, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6316, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eston Lewis or e-mail *elewis3@doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Public Law 102-486, Title III, Sec. 310. Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2874. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 13211-13219) (EPAct), requires that AFV reports for FY 1999 and beyond be made public, including placement of the reports on the DOC Web site and announcement of the availability of the reports in the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to the EPAct, this notice serves as the DOC's official announcement of the availability of the AFV report for FY 2007. DOC's AFV report for FY 2007 is available on the internet at *http://www.osec.doc.gov/oas/ppmd/ppmd/afv.htm.* The AFV report contains information pertaining to planned acquisitions and projections for FY 2008 and FY 2009. EPAct requires that seventy-five percent of all covered, light-duty vehicles acquired for Federal fleets in FY 1999 and beyond be AFVs. In FY 2007, the DOC exceeded the seventy-five percent acquisition requirement. Fred E. Fanning, Director for Administrative Services. [FR Doc. E8-8855 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-03-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board (Docket 24-2008) Foreign-Trade Zone 161 Sedgwick County, Kansas, Application for Subzone Status Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Aircraft Manufacturing), Wichita and Salina, Kansas An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone

(FTZ)161, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the aircraft manufacturing facilities of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation

(HBC)located in Wichita and Salina, Kansas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on April 17, 2008. The HBC facilities are as follows: *Proposed Site 1* , located at 9709 E. Central Avenue, in Wichita (910 acres, 5,700 employees); and, *Proposed Site 2* , located at 2625 Scanlan Avenue, in Salina (56 acres, 430 employees). The facilities are used for manufacturing various types of aircraft (HTSUS 8802.40, with a weight greater than 15,000kg) (up to 750 aircraft annually). The Wichita facilities are used for final assembly of aircraft as well as other manufacturing support activities, while the Salina facilities are used primarily for manufacturing and fabrication of aircraft assemblies and subassemblies. Imported components and raw materials account for approximately 34 percent of the value of inputs used in manufacturing. Parts and components that may be imported into the proposed subzone sites for manufacturing include: oxygen (2804.40); rubber adhesives or polymers (3506.91); acrylic polymers (3906.10); flexible plastic tubing (3917.31); non-reinforced plastic tubing (3917.32); other plastic tubing (3917.39); plastic tubing with fittings (3917.33); self-adhesive tape (3919.10, 3919.90); plastic sheets (3921.13); plastic handles (3926.30); plastic articles (3926.90); vulcanized rubber plates (4008.11); vulcanized rubber forms (4008.19); reinforced rubber tubes without fittings (4009.41); reinforced rubber tubes with fittings (4009.42); vulcanized rubber gaskets (4016.93); vulcanized rubber articles (4016.99); bags and cases (4202.92); wood boxes (4420.90); rubberized textile fabric (5906.99); lifejackets and lifebelts (6307.20); laminated safety glass (7007.21); glass envelopes for lighting (7011.10); glass sheets (7019.39); glass fibers and articles (7019.90); articles of glass (7020.00); imitation jewelry (7117.90); cast fittings of iron and steel (7307.19); stainless steel flanges (7307.21); threaded elbows (7307.22); tube and pipe fittings (7307.29); threaded elbows and sleeves (7307.92); screws, nuts and bolts (7318.15); threaded articles (7318.19); spring washers (7318.21); cotter and cotter pins (7318.24); other non-threaded articles (7318.29); other springs and leaves of iron and steel (7320.90); articles of iron and steel wire (7326.20); iron and steel hangers and supports (7326.90); stranded copper wire with or without fittings (7413.00); iron, copper and steel washers and spring washers (7415.21); non-alloy aluminum pipes and tubes (7608.10); other alloy aluminum pipes and tubes (7608.20); aluminum pipe or tube fittings (7609.00); aluminum fasteners (7616.10); aluminum articles (7616.99); tungsten articles (8101.99); titanium articles (8108.90); pliers, pincers, tweezers and similar (8203.20); hand-operated spanners and wrenches and their parts (8204.11); socket wrenches and their parts with or without handles, drives and extensions (8204.20); other hand tools (8205.59); vices, clamps and similar and their parts (8205.70); tools and their parts for boring and broaching (8207.60); other interchangeable tools (8207.90); locks (8301.40); parts of base-metal padlocks and locks (8301.60); base- metal hinges and parts (8302.10); base-metal mountings (8302.49); base-metal hooks, eyes and eyelets (8308.10); other base-metal stoppers, caps and lids and other packing accessories (8309.90); fuel and other pumps (8413.30); air or vacuum pumps (8414.59); window, wall or split-system air-conditioning machines and parts (8415.10); air-conditioning machines not incorporating a refrigeration unit (8415.83); parts of air-conditioning machines (8415.90); oil or fuel filters for internal combustion engines (8421.23); other electromechanical appliances with self-contained motors (8479.89); pressure-reducing valves and their parts (8481.10); valves for oleo-hydraulic and pneumatic transmissions (8481.20); iron, copper and steel check valves (8481.30); safety or relief valves (8481.40); other hand-operated appliances and parts (8481.80, 8481.90); ball bearings (8482.10); spherical roller bearings (8482.30); other ball or roller bearings and parts (8482.99); bearing housings/plain shaft bearings (8483.30); gears, gearing and other transmission elements (8483.40); flywheels, pulleys and pulley blocks (8483.50); clutch and shaft couplings (8483.60); toothed-wheels, chain sprockets and other transmission elements (8483.90); gaskets and similar joints of metal sheeting (8484.10, 8484.90); other machine parts (8487.90); single-phase AC motors (8501.40); electric motors and generators (8501.63, ); electric motor and generator parts (8503.00); static convertors (8504.40); electrical transformers, static convertors, conductors and parts (8504.50); starter- motors and starter-generators (8511.40); lead-acid storage batteries (8507.20); voltage and voltage-current regulators and cut-out relays (8511.80); audio frequency electric amplifiers (8518.40); electric sound amplifier sets (8518.50); optical media (8523.40); antennas, antenna reflectors and parts (8529.10); burglar and fire alarms (8531.10); electrical signaling equipment (8531.80); printed circuit assembly parts (8531.90); fuses (8536.10); circuit breakers (8536.30); voltage relays (8536.41, 8536.49); other switches (8536.50); lamp-holders (8536.61); other lamp-holders, plugs and sockets (8536.69); other electrical apparatus for switching circuits or making connections (8536.90); electrical board panels and consoles (8537.10); parts for electrical apparatus (8538.90); electrical filament or discharge lamps and parts (8539.29, 8539.39); electrical machines and parts (8543.70, 8543.90); copper winding wire (8544.11); other winding wire (8544.19); coaxial cable and electric conductors (8544.20); ignition and other wiring sets (8544.30); electrical conductors (8544.49); insulating fittings for electrical machines (8547.90); parachutes and rotochutes (8804.00); corrective or protective spectacles and goggles (9004.90); lasers (9013.20); compasses (9014.10); aeronautical navigation instruments and appliances (9014.20); surveying instruments and appliances (9015.80); calculating instruments (9017.20); breathing appliances and gas masks (9020.00); thermometers and pyrometers (9025.19); hydrometers (9025.80); speedometers, tachometers and stroboscopes (9029.20); instruments for checking voltage and current (9030.39); instruments to measure and check instruments and their parts (9031.80, 9031.90); thermostats (9032.10); hydraulic and pneumatic instruments (9032.81); automatic voltage and voltage-current regulators (9032.89); electric lamps and lighting fittings (9405.20, 9405.40); illuminated signs and name plates (9405.60); plastic parts for lamps and lighting fixtures (9405.92, 9405.99); and, ball-point pens (9608.10). The duty rates on the imported components range from duty-free to 15 percent. This application requests authority for HBC to conduct the manufacturing activity under FTZ procedures, which would exempt the company from customs duty payments on the imported components used in export production. Approximately 50 percent of production is exported. On domestic sales, the company could choose the lower duty rate (duty-free) that applies to the finished product for the imported components used in manufacturing. HBC may also realize savings related to direct delivery and weekly customs entry procedures. The company will also realize savings on the elimination of duties on materials that become scrap/waste during manufacturing. Additionally, customs duties could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. The application indicates that the FTZ-related savings would improve the plant's international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ staff is designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed below. The closing period for their receipt is June 23, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to July 7, 2008). A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available at each of the following addresses: U. S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 150 North Main Street, Suite 200, Wichita, Kansas; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20230. For further information contact Christopher Kemp at christopher_kemp@ita.doc.gov or

(202)482-0862. Dated: April 17, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8814 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (TRANSTAC) will meet on May 8, 2008, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania & Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology. Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Review Status of Working Groups. 3. Proposals from the Public. 4. Regulations and Status of Commerce Control List Review. 5. Missile Technology Review. 6. Wassenaar Update—Status of May 08 Proposals. 7. TRANSTAC Business. 8. Closing Comments. The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov* no later than May 1, 2008. The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials to Yvette Springer. For more information contact Ms. Springer on

(202)482-2813. Dated: April 15, 2008. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8741 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 28, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”) for Ayecue International SLU and its affiliated producer, Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Ayecue”). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 73 FR 4822 (January 28, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The *Preliminary Results* for this administrative review were published on January 28, 2008. Since the *Preliminary Results,* the following events have occurred: Verification The Department did not conduct verification in this new shipper review. Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs On January 28, 2008, in the *Preliminary Results,* the Department stated that interested parties were to submit case briefs within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal briefs within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Ayecue timely filed its case brief on February 27, 2008. No other interested party submitted a case or rebuttal brief. Hearing No party requested a hearing for this new shipper review. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis.* “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 1 1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al.* for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat* v. *United States,* 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Eleventh Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 17, 2008 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room 1117 in the main Commerce Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made the following changes in the margin calculations for the final results:

(1)We used the 2006-2007 annual report of Agro Dutch Industries Limited (Agro Dutch) to value fresh mushrooms and

(2)we used the average 2006-2007 data from the annual reports of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods Limited to calculate surrogate financial ratios. Final Results of the Review The Department has determined that the following final dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007: Exporter Manufacturer Weighted-average margin (percentage) Ayecue International SLU Ayecue (Liaocheng). Foodstuff Co., Ltd 0.00 Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions for Ayecue to CBP after 15 days of the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) *ad valerom* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific (or customer) assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Ayecue International SLU and produced by Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”):

(1)For subject merchandise exported by Ayecue International SLU and produced by Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd., no cash deposit will be required;

(2)for subject merchandise exported by Ayecue International SLU but not manufactured by Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 198.63 percent); and

(3)for subject merchandise manufactured by Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd., but exported by any party other than Ayecue International SLU, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h). Dated: April 17, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Use Contemporaneous Financial Statement Data [FR Doc. E8-8809 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The Manufacturing Council: Meeting of the Manufacturing Council AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting via teleconference. SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting via teleconference to deliberate a draft recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce regarding Alternative Energy. DATES: May 7, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. EST. *For the Conference Call-In Number and Further Information, Contact:* The Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1369), or visit the Council's Web site at *http://www.manufacturing.gov/council.* Dated: April 18, 2008. Kate Worthington, Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council. [FR Doc. E8-8877 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-925) Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the People’s Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that sodium nitrite from the People’s Republic of China

(PRC)is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated dumping margin is shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4162. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 8, 2007, the Department received petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from the PRC and the Federal Republic of Germany filed in proper form by General Chemical LLC (petitioner). The Department initiated antidumping duty investigations of sodium nitrite from the above-mentioned countries on November 28, 2007. *See Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 68563 (December 5, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). In the “Respondent Selection” section of the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that it intended to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)data. On the date of publication of the *Initiation Notice* , the Department released to parties under an Administrative Protective Order (APO), the CBP data obtained for respondent selection purposes. On December 12, 2007, the petitioner submitted comments regarding respondent selection, urging the Department to select as mandatory respondents, two PRC exporters who accounted for the majority of the sodium nitrite imported into the United States from the PRC during the period of investigation (POI). The Department did not receive any other comments from interested parties concerning respondent selection. In order to identify the universe of potential respondents for purposes of this investigation, the Department analyzed information obtained from the petition, CBP, and its own research. The petition identified 92 exporters and producers of sodium nitrite from the PRC. The Department obtained public information for two exporters and/or producers of the subject merchandise that are identified in the CBP data, Qingdao Hengyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. (Qingdao), and Hualong Ammonium Nitrate Company Ltd. (Hualong). The Department determined that Qingdao and Hualong were the appropriate respondents in this investigation because they represent all publicly identified PRC exporters of subject merchandise during the POI. On December 31, 2007, the Department selected Qingdao and Hualong as mandatory respondents. *See* Memorandum regarding “Identification of Respondents in the Antidumping Investigation of Sodium Nitrite from the People’s Republic of China,” dated December 31, 2007 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). On December 26, 2007, the International Trade Commission

(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC. *See Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany* , 73 FR 2278 (January 14, 2008). On January 3, 2008, the Department issued Sections A through D of its antidumping duty questionnaire to Qingdao and Hualong via DHL and FedEx express courier services. The tracking information obtained from DHL and FedEx indicates that Qingdao and Hualong received the Department’s questionnaire on January 7 and 9, 2008, respectively. *See* Memorandum regarding “Lack of Response to the Department of Commerce’s Questionnaire” dated February 25, 2008 at Attachment I (Lack of Response Memorandum). In the cover letter to the questionnaire, the Department requested that Qingdao and Hualong, as mandatory respondents, submit a response to Section A, and a combined response to sections C and D of the questionnaire, by January 24, 2008, and February 11, 2008, respectively. Further, on January 15, 2008, the Department issued a letter to both Qingdao and Hualong, instructing them to use, for reporting purposes, certain physical characteristics that were identified in an attachment to the letter. The tracking information that we obtained from FedEx and DHL indicates that Qingdao and Hualong received the letter on January 18 and 22, 2008, respectively. *See* Lack of Response Memorandum at Attachment II. Qingdao and Hualong failed to respond to the Department’s questionnaire. Period of Investigation The POI is April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service

(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Non-Market-Economy (“NME”) Treatment The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003) (unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003)). The Department has not revoked the PRC’s status as an NME country. Therefore, in this preliminary determination, we have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our NME methodology. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation involving an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters must demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities, under a test developed by the Department and described in the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). No party filed separate rate information in this investigation. Absent separate rate information, the Department has presumed that all companies within the PRC, exporting the subject merchandise (including Qingdao and Hualong), are subject to government control and thus are part of the PRC-wide entity and should be assessed a single, China-wide, antidumping duty rate. The PRC-Wide Entity - Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that,

(1)if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority,

(2)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782,

(3)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or

(4)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:

(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Because Qingdao and Hualong are part of the PRC-wide entity, and they withheld information that is required by the Department to calculate dumping margins, the Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the PRC-wide entity’s dumping margin on facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Application of Adverse Inferences According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-54026 (September 13, 2005); and * Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil * , 67 FR 55792, 55794-55796 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department’s practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. *See , e.g., id* . Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 69663, 69664 (December 10, 2007). Although the Department’s antidumping duty questionnaire stated that failure to comply with a request for information may result in the Department using “information that is adverse to your interest” in conducting its analysis, Qingdao and Hualong failed to respond to the questionnaire. This constitutes a failure to cooperate to the best of their abilities to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Because these companies did not provide the information requested, section 782(d) and

(e)of the Act are not applicable. Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Qingdao and Hualong, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan* , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse facts available because the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). Selection of Information Used as Facts Available When the Department applies adverse facts available because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. *See also* 19 CFR 351.308(c); Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 868-71, (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland* , 69 FR 77216, 77218-19 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland* , 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned the PRC-wide entity, including Qingdao and Hualong, a dumping margin of 190.74 percent, the highest margin from the petition, as revised by the Department,. *See Initiation Notice* 72 FR at 68567. When the Department relies upon secondary information, it must “to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at [the Department’s] disposal.” *See* section 776(c) of the Act. To corroborate the initiation dumping margins for use as adverse facts available, to the extent appropriate, where information was available, we revisited our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition. *See Initiation Checklist* . In our analysis, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the petition margins for use as an adverse facts available rate. We also examined the key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the petition to derive dumping margins. Further, we examined information in the petition, and its supplements, that came from various independent sources which corroborates key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations that were used to derive the estimated dumping margins in the petition. *See Initiation Notice* . We received no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. Based on the foregoing, the Department has determined that the information provided by independent sources that was included in the petition, as revised by the Department, corroborates the 190.74 percent rate, to the extent practicable. Therefore, the Department finds that the rates derived from the petition for initiation purposes, are reliable for purposes of calculating a rate based on adverse inferences. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margin is as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) China-Wide Rate 190.74 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of sodium nitrite from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin indicated in the chart above. The suspension-of-liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. Under section 735(b)(2) of the Act, if the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments on the preliminary determination may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline for the submission of case briefs. 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. *Id* . Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. *Id* . Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with an electronic copy of the public version of such briefs. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held three days after the deadline for submitting rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain:

(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. *Id* . This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 16, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8832 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-428-841 Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that sodium nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination not later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482 1766 or

(202)482 3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 28, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from Germany. *See Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 68563 (December 5, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The petitioner in this investigation is General Chemical LLC. The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 68564. No parties submitted comments on the scope. The Department also set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product characteristics and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 68564. Interested parties submitted comments on this issue. On December 21, 2007, we selected BASF AG (BASF), the largest producer/exporter of sodium nitrite from Germany during the period of investigation (POI), as the mandatory respondent in this proceeding. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director Office 2, from the Team, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany - Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,” dated December 21, 2007. On January 3, 2008, the United States International Trade Commission

(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of sodium nitrite from Germany and the People's Republic of China are materially injuring the U.S. industry and the ITC notified the Department of its findings. *See Sodium Nitrite From China and Germany, Case Numbers: 701-TA-453 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Preliminary)* , 72 FR 2278 (January 14, 2008). We subsequently issued the antidumping questionnaire to BASF on January 14, 2008. On January 28, 2008, BASF informed the Department that it would not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Period of Investigation The POI is October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service

(AFA)is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to the sole respondent in this investigation, BASF. As noted in the “Supplementary Information” section above, BASF informed the Department that it would not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. *See* BASF's January 28, 2008, letter to the Department. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that,

(1)if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority,

(2)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782,

(3)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or

(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. In this case, BASF failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire and, as such, it withheld information that we requested for purposes of determining its antidumping duty margin, thereby significantly impeding this proceeding. Because this company did not provide any information, sections 782(d) and 782(e) of the Act are not applicable. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination for BASF, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act, we have based its dumping margin on facts otherwise available. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. *See* the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1

(1994)at 870 (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-4199. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); and *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 69663, 69664 (December 10, 2007). BASF's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire constitutes a failure on its part to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined that BASF failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan* , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. *See* SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(c). It is the Department's practice to use the highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there are no other respondents. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland* , 69 FR 77216, 77218 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland* , 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted in this case, we have assigned to BASF the highest margin alleged in the petition, as referenced in the *Initiation Notice* , of 237.00 percent. ( *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 68567; and November 28, 2007, Initiation Checklist at page 9.) When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably available at its disposal. To “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part* , 62 FR 11825, 11843 (March 13, 1997)). The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d); *see also* SAA at 870. To the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis. *See* Initiation Checklist at page 9. We also examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition for use as AFA in this preliminary determination. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the key elements of the export-price

(EP)and normal-value

(NV)calculations used in the petition to derive margins. *See* Initiation Checklist at pages 5-9. During our pre-initiation analysis, we also examined information from various independent sources provided either in the petition or in supplements to the petition that corroborates key elements of the EP and NV calculations used in the petition to derive estimated margins. *See id* . Specifically, the petitioners calculated three constructed export prices

(CEPs)using POI price quotes for sodium nitrite produced by BASF in Germany and sold (or offered for sale) by BASF's affiliate in the United States. *See* Initiation Checklist at page 5. These price quotes identify the price that the first U.S. customer unaffiliated with BASF paid for the subject merchandise. *See id* . The petitioners also calculated an export price

(EP)using the average unit values

(AUVs)of sodium nitrite from Germany imported into the United States during the POI, classified under HTSUS 2834.10.1000, as reported in the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics. *See* Volume 2 of the November 8, 2007, petition at Exhibit II-6 (the petition). We compared the U.S. price quotes to the AUVs for this period and confirmed that the U.S. price quotes were consistent with the AUVs. *See* Initiation Checklist at Attachment V, Volume 2 of the petition at Exhibit II-6, and the November 20, 2007, supplement to the petition at Exhibit 5. The petitioners adjusted CEPs, where applicable, for discounts, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight and transloading fees, U.S. customs and port fees, warehousing expenses, and CEP profit. *See* Initiation Checklist at page 5. For EP based on customs value, the petitioner made an adjustment only for foreign inland freight, as the AUV is based on an FOB foreign port price. See Initiation Checklist at pages 5-6. Based on our review of the information contained in the petition, we recalculated CEP to correct certain errors in the petitioner's calculation. See id. Based on an examination of the aforementioned information, we considered the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices to be corroborated. Further, we obtained no other information that would make us question the reliability of the pricing information provided in the petition. With respect to NV, the petitioner stated that neither home-market prices nor third-country prices of German-produced sodium nitrite were reasonably available. According to the petitioner, it was unsuccessful in obtaining such pricing information, despite its best efforts. Therefore, the petitioner based NV on constructed value (CV). *See* Initiation Checklist at pages 7-8. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacture (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; packing expenses; and profit. In calculating COM and packing, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the inputs used to manufacture and pack sodium nitrite in Germany on its own production experience during the POI. The petitioner then multiplied the usage quantities by the value of the inputs used to manufacture and pack sodium nitrite in Germany based on publicly available data ( *e.g.* , ammonia, caustic soda), data obtained from market research ( *e.g.* , silicon dioxide), or its own costs ( *e.g.* , packing materials). *See* Initiation Checklist at pages 7-8. The petitioner determined labor costs using the labor inputs derived from its own experience which it valued using an industrial German wage rate obtained from the International Labour Organization's “Laborsta” database at http://laborsta.ilo.org. The petitioner determined energy costs ( *i.e.* , electricity, natural gas, steam, cooling water, and city water) using German price data obtained from market research. To calculate factory overhead, the petitioner relied on its own experience (for factory overhead exclusive of depreciation) and on BASF's parent company's consolidated financial data (for depreciation). To calculate SG&A expenses and profit, the petitioner relied on BASF's parent company's consolidated financial data, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, the period most contemporaneous with the POI for which the petitioner was able to obtain such information. *See* Initiation Checklist at page 8. Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the petitioner's calculation of CV to be corroborated. Because the petitioner demonstrated, and we confirmed, the validity of the input-usage quantities it used in its CV build-up, used public sources of information that we confirmed were accurate to value inputs of production, and used financial documents of the type accepted by the Department in prior cases that we consider to be accurate ( *e.g.* , a financial statement) to compute factory overhead, SG&A, financial expense, and profit, we consider the petitioner's calculation of NV corroborated. Further, we consider the petitioner's calculation of NV corroborated because several parts of that calculation relied on publicly available information which does not require further corroboration. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the petition by examining source documents as well as publicly available information, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the petition are reliable for purposes of this investigation. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. *In Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States* , 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court found that the AFA rate bore a “rational relationship” to the respondent's “commercial practices” and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed that the calculation of the margins in the petition reflected the commercial practices of the sodium nitrite industry during the POI. Further, no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance of this information. As such, we preliminarily find that the highest margin in the petition, which we determined during our pre-initiation analysis was based on adequate and accurate information and which we have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination, is relevant as the AFA rate for BASF in this investigation. Similar to our position in *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is the first proceeding involving BASF, there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to BASF in this investigation, we have corroborated the AFA rate “to the extent practicable.” *See* section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating that, “pursuant to the to the extent practicable' language the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible.”). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 237.00 percent in the *Initiation Notice* has probative value. Consequently, in selecting a rate to apply as AFA with respect to BASF, we have applied the margin rate of 237.00 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the *Initiation Notice* . All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the petition. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Glycine from Japan* , 72 FR 67271, 67272 (November 28, 2007). *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia* , 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004). Consistent with our practice, we used the rates in the petition that were considered in the Department's initiation to calculate a simple average to be assigned as the all-others rate. That simple average, 150.82 percent, is derived from the following petition rates: 237.00 percent, 151.98 percent, 148.73 percent, and 65.58 percent. *See* Initiation Checklist at page 9. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) BASF AG 237.00 All Others 150.82 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of sodium nitrite from Germany, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:

(1)the rate for the firm listed above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination;

(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;

(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 237.00 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of sodium nitrite from Germany are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will not be conducting verification in this case because BASF failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, as discussed above in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section of this notice. Therefore, the deadline for submission of factual information in 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) is not applicable. Thus, the deadline for submission of factual information in this investigation will be seven days after the date of publication of this notice. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 16, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8836 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH05 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 5.2 “Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Decisionmaking” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2 “Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking.” This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 5.2 is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/default.php* Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided at the CCSP link. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: *5.2-uncertainties@climatescience.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: April 8, 2008. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E8-8829 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH02 Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)announces that the Proposed Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan

(Plan)is available for public review and comment. The Plan addresses the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ( *Oncorhynchus nerka* ) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), which spawns in Lake Ozette and its tributaries, on the Olympic Peninsula at the western edge of Washington State. NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Proposed Plan. DATES: NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific daylight time on June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Rosemary Furfey, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Blvd, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to: *OzettePlan.nwr@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following identifier: Comments on Lake Ozette Sockeye Plan. Comments may be submitted via facsimile

(fax)to 503-872-2737. Persons wishing to review the Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., CD-ROM) from Sharon Houghton by calling 503-230-5418 or by e-mailing a request to *sharon.houghton@noaa.gov* with the subject line “CD-ROM Request for Lake Ozette Sockeye Plan.” Electronic copies of the Plan are also available on-line on the NMFS website *www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Draft-Plans.cfm* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Furfey, NMFS Lake Ozette Salmon Recovery Coordinator at 503-231-2149, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon Recovery Division at 503-230-5434. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). The ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate:

(1)objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered;

(2)site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and

(3)estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for each listed species unless such a plan would not promote its recovery. NMFS is responsible for developing and implementing ESA recovery plans for listed salmon and steelhead. In so doing, NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids to the point that they are again self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. This Plan is the product of a collaborative process initiated by NMFS and involving the participation and contributions of a wide group of private and governmental entities, citizens, and sovereigns (tribes) with the potential to contribute to recovery. In 2005, NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering Committee (Steering Committee), an existing, locally based citizen group, began working together to write a draft recovery plan for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. The goal was to produce a plan that meets ESA requirements for recovery plans as well as the State of Washington's recovery planning outline and guidance ( *www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/default/htm* ). The Steering Committee has met periodically since 1981 to discuss natural resource issues related to sockeye salmon. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from the Makah and Quileute Tribes, Olympic National Park, Clallam County, local land owners, Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, NMFS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity, private timber companies, and local citizens. Frequent Steering Committee meetings enabled NMFS and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team members to share draft recovery plan products and seek Steering Committee review and comment as the draft plan was developed. In early 2007, the preliminary draft Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty *et al.* , 2007) and NMFS' Status Report for Completing the Sockeye Recovery Plan were posted on the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity web page at *noplegroup.org/NOPLE/pages/watersheds/OzetteLakeWatershedPage.htm* . In addition to participating in frequent Steering Committee meetings during development of the draft recovery plan, NMFS periodically briefed staff or members of the following key stakeholder groups: Olympic National Park, Clallam County Commissioners and Planning Department, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, Washington Forest Protection Association, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Ozette watershed private timber land managers, Lake Ozette watershed landowners, and North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity. NMFS has appointed teams of scientists with expertise in salmon species to provide scientific support for recovery planning in the Northwest. These technical recovery teams

(TRTs)include biologists from NMFS, state, tribal, and local agencies, academic institutions, and private consulting groups. The Puget Sound TRT provided two reports for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon recovery planning process:

(1)a description of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population (Currens *et al.* , 2006) and

(2)viability criteria for the sockeye (Rawson *et al.* , 2008). The team also reviewed the Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty *et al.* , 2007) and the draft recovery plan in detail, and the Plan was revised accordingly. The proposed Plan is now available for public review and comment. The Limiting Factors Analysis and the two Puget Sound TRT reports, which provide the scientific basis for the Plan, are also available for public review and comment. With approval of the final Plan, NMFS commits itself to implement the actions in the Plan for which it has authority and funding, to work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and to encourage other Federal agencies and tribal governments to implement Plan actions for which they have responsibility and authority. NMFS will also encourage the State of Washington to seek similar implementation commitments from state agencies and local governments. NMFS will seek opportunities to work with tribal governments on plan implementation to help the agency meet its trust and treaty responsibilities to the tribes. NMFS will encourage other Federal agencies to do the same when implementing programs that may affect trust and treaty resources. NMFS expects the Plan to help NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to future ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA decisions. For example, the Plan will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on the species. This context will be enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the “best available information” for section 7 consultations as well as for ESA section 10 habitat conservation plans and other ESA decisions. Such information includes viability criteria for the ESU, better understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing the ESU, better information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and better geographic context for where the ESU can tolerate varying levels of risk. The Plan Lake Ozette, its perimeter shore, and most of the Ozette River, which forms the outlet of the lake to the estuary and Pacific Ocean, are included in the 922,000-acre Olympic National Park. This Plan complements, recognizes, and works within the authorities of the Olympic National Park, Clallam County, the Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, the Washington Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan, and tribal trust and treaty rights, and does not augment or supersede these or other authorities. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14528) as a species threatened with extinction. The Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU is unique among other ESA-listed salmon in being made up of only one population with an inland range that is limited to a single freshwater watershed a short distance from the ocean. Furthermore, the Lake Ozette watershed has an unusual potential for protection and restoration of landscape processes to support long-term salmon survival, because it is relatively undeveloped, has a relatively low human population density, and the lake itself is located in the Olympic National Park. The Plan is based on a series of hypotheses about what is limiting the survival of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. These hypotheses are based on the best available current knowledge about the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, and are designed to be tested in the course of time through monitoring the fish, their environment, and the effects of the actions that may be taken to protect and improve the Lake Ozette sockeye's ecosystem and survival chances. The process of designing actions based on best available information, then monitoring the results to find out what works best and changing the actions as appropriate, is called adaptive management. The Plan is intended as a tool for adaptive management for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon recovery. ESU Addressed and Planning Area The Plan is intended for implementation within the range of the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU, which spawns in Lake Ozette or its tributaries, on the Olympic Peninsula at the western edge of Washington State. The Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU is made up of only one population (Currens *et al.* , 2006), which currently contains five distinct spawning aggregations that are described in the Plan as subpopulations. The subpopulations can be grouped according to whether they spawn in tributaries or near lake beaches. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are distinguished from other Washington sockeye salmon ESUs based upon unique genetic characteristics, early river entry, the relatively large adult body size, and large average smolt size relative to other coastal Washington sockeye salmon populations. Lake Ozette is situated on the coastal plain between the Pacific Ocean and the Olympic Mountains. The lake is approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) long from north to south and 2 miles (3.2 km) wide, irregularly shaped, and containing several bays, distinct points, and three islands. With a surface area of 11.8 mi2 (30.6 km2; 7,550 acres; 3,056 ha), Lake Ozette is the third largest natural lake in Washington State. The Ozette River drains the lake from its north end and travels approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km) along a sinuous course to the Pacific Ocean. The total drainage area of the Ozette watershed at the confluence with the Pacific Ocean is 88.4 mi2 (229 km2). Historically, the Ozette watershed supported thriving populations of sockeye salmon, which were an important element of the fisheries of the Makah and Quileute Tribes as well as an important subsistence species for early European-American settlers in the watershed. The peak harvest of 17,500 fish was recorded in 1949, but abundance decreased rapidly in the following two decades. Because of declining numbers, tribal commercial harvest ceased in 1974 and all tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest ceased in 1982. The Plan's Recovery Goals and Recovery Criteria The Plan's goal is for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population to reach the point that it is naturally self-sustaining, no longer needs the protection of the Act, and can be delisted. In addition, a recovery plan can have “broad-sense” goals that may go beyond the requirements for delisting to acknowledge social, cultural, or economic values regarding the listed species. NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering Committee crafted the following vision statement describing desirable future conditions for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon and its human and biological setting: “The naturally spawning Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population is sufficiently abundant, productive, and diverse (in terms of life histories and geographic distribution) to provide significant ecological, cultural, social, and economic benefits. Protection and restoration of ecosystems have sustained processes necessary to maintain sockeye as well as other salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and other native fish and wildlife species. Community livability, economic well-being, and treaty-reserved fishing rights have benefited by balancing salmon recovery with management of local land use and fishery economies.” To meet the ESA requirement for objective, measurable criteria for delisting, the Plan provides biological recovery criteria based on the Puget Sound TRT viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon as well as “threats” criteria based on the listing factors defined in ESA section 4(a)(1). Biological Recovery Criteria The Puget Sound TRT provided viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon in terms of the four “viable salmonid population”

(VSP)parameters defined in a NMFS technical memorandum, * Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units* (McElhany *et al.* , 2000). The Puget Sound TRT's viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are as follows: • Abundance: Between 35,500 and 121,000 adult spawners, over a number of years. • Productivity (Growth Rate): Stable or increasing • Spatial Structure: Multiple, persistent, and spatially distinct beach spawning aggregations, augmented by tributary spawning aggregations. • Diversity: One or more persistent spawning aggregations from each major genetic and life history group historically present within that population. Maintain the distinctness between Lake Ozette sockeye salmon and kokanee. NMFS, in coordination with the Steering Committee, concluded that the Puget Sound TRT's viability criteria should be the biological recovery criteria of the plan. Threats Criteria “Threats” are the human activities or natural events that cause the factors limiting a species' survival. For example, where high water temperatures are identified as a limiting factor, removal of riparian vegetation, which causes loss of shade and results in higher water temperatures, is categorized as a threat. The threats criteria define the conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or mitigated. Threats criteria are provided in Section 3.3.2 of the Plan. Causes for Decline and Current Threats The 1999 listing of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon as threatened under the ESA was primarily attributed to concerns about low abundance and effects of small population genetic and demographic variability. A more thorough identification of limiting factors is provided in the draft Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty *et al.* , 2007). Based on the best available information and analysis, the Lake Ozette Steering Committee's Technical Workgroup evaluated and rated each of the limiting factors hypotheses for its contribution to sockeye population or subpopulation mortality by life stage. Some limiting factors, habitat conditions, and life histories are shared among all subpopulations, while others vary. In the Limiting Factors Analysis, the subpopulations were grouped based on spawning environment, i.e., tributary vs. beach, and limiting factors were described in three categories: those affecting the entire population; those specific to beach spawners; and those specific to tributary spawners. Two limiting factors are hypothesized as having a high impact on all Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population segments: piscivorous fish predation on juveniles rearing in the lake, and general marine survival. Limiting factors with moderate impact on all population segments are marine mammal predation on adults re-entering the Ozette River and water quality in the Ozette River. Limiting factors hypothesized as having a high impact specifically on beach spawners are poor-quality spawning habitat, which decreases survival in the incubation-to-emergence life stage, and predation on adults, eggs, and newly emerged fry. Limiting factors with moderate impact on beach spawners are: seasonal lake level changes; water quality issues, including turbidity and fine sediment; and competition for good quality spawning habitat, which can result in redd superimposition and decreased egg-to-fry survival. Limiting factors hypothesized as having high impact specifically on tributary spawners are fine sediments, unstable channel, and other water quality issues that reduce spawning habitat quality and result in decreased egg-to-fry survival. High predation on fry during their emigration to the lake was identified as a limiting factor with moderate impact on tributary spawners. Recovery Strategies and Actions The Plan recommends an overall recovery strategy based on current research about the relationships between watershed processes, land use, and freshwater habitat. This information is then related to what is known about sockeye salmon mortality by life stage, and to the hypothesized limiting factors. The result is a hierarchy of types of recovery strategies that can form the basis for setting priorities among potential actions. The first priority, and likely the most effective type of action, is to assess, protect, and maintain good quality habitat and the processes that create and maintain it. One example would be to protect currently used spawning areas. Another would be for willing landowners to protect forest or streamside areas with conservation easements, where trees could be allowed to grow large, mature, and eventually fall by natural forces, creating habitat conditions needed by sockeye salmon. Next in importance and certainty of effectiveness is reconnecting isolated habitat - for example, removing a blockage in the stream, thus allowing salmon more room to spawn and rear. Third is restoring biological processes of various kinds; this includes a wide range of potential actions. For example: restoring natural predator-prey balance by improving egg-to-fry survival and/or reducing non-native fish species by means of selective fishing; ceasing to remove large woody debris from sections of the lower Ozette River; and assessing sources of sediment and reducing sediment production and delivery to streams. Directly restoring degraded habitat is of lower priority because it is more difficult, often more costly, and often effective only in the short term, compared to restoring the processes that create habitat and will continue creating properly functioning habitat over time. However, some direct actions, such as placing large woody debris in carefully chosen areas, will initiate biological processes that are likely to continue naturally. Creating new habitat is significantly more difficult than working to protect and restore existing habitat; creating new habitat is therefore of lowest priority, although in some circumstances it may be the only alternative. NMFS, with input from the Steering Committee, evaluated the sub-basins in the Lake Ozette watershed for their importance as sockeye habitat. The Plan accordingly provides geographic priorities for recovery actions. Habitat, harvest, and hatchery factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are included in the recovery strategies. Hatchery and harvest management issues are presented and addressed within the context of biological processes. NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering Committee developed an extensive list of 121 potential projects/actions. The proposed actions are designed to address the full range of limiting factors for all life cycle stages of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon and are intended to improve the health and ecosystems of these fish. The proposed actions are in six categories: • Fisheries management • Habitat-related actions • Hatchery supplementation • Predation-related actions • Research, monitoring, and adaptive management • Public education and outreach The proposed recovery actions will need to be implemented in cooperation with all appropriate permitting authorities (including the Olympic National Park), and in the context of existing permits, regulations, agreements, and public processes. Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management The Plan identifies the many knowledge gaps and uncertainties involved in designing recovery actions for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Because the proposed recovery actions are based on hypotheses about the relationships between fish, limiting factors, human activities, and the environment, the Plan recommends research and monitoring to determine progress in recovery. Monitoring is the basis for adaptive management - the process of adjusting management actions and/or directions based on new information. Research, monitoring, and adaptive management are built into the Plan. Time and Cost Estimates The ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that the recovery plan include “estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the Plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal” (16 U.S.C. 1533[f][1]). Appendix E of the Plan provides cost estimates for actions where costs are available. Costs for actions that are being implemented as part of ongoing, existing programs are considered “baseline” and are not included in Appendix E as costs to recover sockeye salmon. During the public comment period, NMFS will work with regional experts to identify costs, scale, or unit costs for actions that require more information. Appendix E and the total cost estimate will be updated with this new information for the final recovery plan. The overall total cost to implement potential recovery actions for the first 10 years of this plan is estimated to be about $46 million. Many of these are one-time costs. Approximately $100,000 represents ongoing, annual administrative or infrastructure costs that will likely continue for the duration of implementation of the recovery plan. Thus, it can be inferred that if recovery takes 50 years, another $4 million may be incurred over the long term to continue and maintain proposed habitat improvements. NMFS estimates that recovery of the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU, like recovery for most of the ESA-listed salmon, could take 50 to 100 years. Because many uncertainties exist about how sockeye salmon and their habitat will respond to recovery actions, the costs and recovery actions in this plan focus on the first 10 years of implementation. Actions and costs will be revised over time as part of adaptive management. Unlike other ESA-listed salmon species in Washington State, the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU has not had a state-designated recovery board responsible for developing the recovery plan. Therefore, NMFS is working with the Lake Ozette Steering Committee and other entities such as the newly formed North Pacific Coast Lead Entity and the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership to make an implementation plan. NMFS anticipates that the organizations potentially involved will choose to participate, in recognition of the shared benefits of habitat protection and restoration. A detailed implementation schedule and further details of an organizational approach to implementation will be produced in 2008 after the recovery plan is adopted. Conclusion NMFS concludes that the Plan meets the requirements of ESA section 4(f) and thus is proposing it as an ESA recovery plan. Public Comments Solicited NMFS solicits written comments on the Proposed Plan. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS' decision whether to approve the Plan. Additionally, NMFS will provide a summary of the comments and responses through its Northwest Region web site and provide a news release for the public announcing the availability of the response to comments. NMFS seeks comments particularly in the following areas:

(1)the analysis of, and hypotheses concerning, limiting factors and threats;

(2)the recovery objectives, strategies, and actions;

(3)the criteria for removing the ESU from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; and

(4)estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions, including the intent to be even more specific by soliciting an implementation schedule. Literature Cited Currens, K.P., R. Fuerstenberg, W. Graeber, K. Rawson, M. Ruckelshaus, N.J. Sands, and J. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of sockeye salmon in Lake Ozette. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team document. March 21, 2006. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 20p. *www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/puget_docs* Haggerty, M.J., A.C. Ritchie, J.G. Shellberg, M.J. Crewson, and J. Jolonen. 2007. Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis: Draft 8_1. Prepared for the Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA Fisheries in cooperation with the Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee. Port Angeles, WA. McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156p. Rawson, K., N.J. Sands, K.P.Currens, W. Graeber, M. Ruckelshaus, R. Fuerstenberg, and J.B. Scott. 2008. Viability Criteria for the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team document. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 39p. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: April 17, 2008. Marta Nammack, Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-8831 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas and Response to Comments AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Extension of public comment period; Notice on the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas. SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of the Interior published a notice in the **Federal Register** on March 17, 2008 (73 FR 14227) announcing a 30-day public comment period on the Revised Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Revised Draft Framework). Copies of the Revised Draft Framework can be requested via the contact information below or downloaded from *http://www.mpa.gov.* The deadline for public comment on the Revised Draft Framework is hereby extended. DATES: The extended deadline for comments on the Revised Draft Framework is 11:59 EDT, May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: All comments regarding the Revised Draft Framework should be submitted to Joseph Uravitch, National MPA Center, N/ORM, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Comments sent via e-mail should be sent to *mpa.comments@noaa.gov,* and all comments sent by fax should be sent to 301-713-3110. E-mail and fax comments should state “Revised Draft Framework Comments” in the subject line. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer to the **Federal Register** notice of March 17, or contact Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301-713-3100, or via e-mail at *mpa.comments@noaa.gov.* Dated: April 16, 2008. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8672 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-M COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Proposal To Exempt the Trading and Clearing of Certain Products Related to streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed order and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) is proposing to exempt the trading and clearing of products called options on streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares (“ST Gold Options”), proposed to be traded on a national securities exchange, and cleared through the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), from the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 1 and the regulations thereunder to the extent necessary to permit them to be so traded and cleared. Authority for this exemption is found in Section 4(c) of the CEA. 2 1 7 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* 2 7 U.S.C. 6(c). DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov/http://frwebgate.access.gpo/cgi-bin/leaving* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *secretary@cftc.gov.* Include “OCC ST Gold Options 4(c)” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 202/418-5521. • *Mail:* Send to David A. Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. • *Courier:* Same as mail above. *All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.CFTC.gov/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert B. Wasserman, Associate Director, 202-418-5092, *rwasserman@cftc.gov* , Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The OCC is both a Derivatives Clearing Organization (“DCO”) registered pursuant to Section 5b of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 7a-1, and a securities clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the '34 Act”). 3 3 15 U.S.C. 78q-l. OCC has filed with the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the CEA and Commission Regulations 39.4(a) and 40.5 thereunder, 4 requests for approval of rules and rule amendments that would enable OCC to clear and settle ST Gold Options 5 traded on a national securities exchange in its capacity as a registered securities clearing agency (and not in its capacity as a DCO). 6 Section 5c(c)(3) provides that the CFTC must approve any such rules and rule amendments submitted for approval unless it finds that the rules or rule amendments would violate the CEA. 4 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c), 17 CFR 39.4(a), 40.5. 5 streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares, which underly ST Gold Options, are described in greater detail in the “Proposed Exemptive Order for ST Gold Futures Contracts,” 73 FR 13,867 (March 14, 2008). The length of the comment period for this proposal is informed by the fact that the ST Gold Futures Contracts proposal is outstanding, and the goal of addressing both proposals simultaneously. 6 *See* SR-OCC-2008-04 and Amendment No. 1 thereto. OCC has also filed these proposed rule changes with the SEC. The request for approval concerning the ST Gold Options was filed effective February 4, 2008, and Amendment No. 1 thereto was filed effective March 7, 2008. II. Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers the CFTC to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions from any of the provisions of the CEA (subject to exceptions not relevant here) where the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. 7 The Commission may grant such an exemption by rule, regulation or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, and may do so on application of any person or on its own initiative. 7 Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1), provides in full that: In order to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition, the Commission by rule, regulation, or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may (on its own initiative or on application of any person, including any board of trade designated or registered as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility for transactions for future delivery in any commodity under section 7 of this title) exempt any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that is otherwise subject to subsection

(a)of this section (including any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice or rendering other services with respect to, the agreement, contract, or transaction), either unconditionally or on stated terms or conditions or for stated periods and either retroactively or prospectively, or both, from any of the requirements of subsection

(a)of this section, or from any other provision of this chapter (except subparagraphs (c)(ii) and

(D)of section 2(a)(1) of this title, except that the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission may by rule, regulation, or order jointly exclude any agreement, contract, or transaction from section 2(a)(1)(D) of this title), if the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. In enacting Section 4(c), Congress noted that the goal of the provision “is to give the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.” 8 Permitting ST Gold Options to trade on national securities exchanges and be cleared on OCC as discussed above may foster both financial innovation and competition. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 11, 2008, and in particular the addendum thereto concerning *Principles Governing the Review of Novel Derivative Products,* the Commission believes that novel derivative products that implicate areas of overlapping regulatory concern should be permitted to trade in either or both a CFTC- or SEC-regulated environment, in a manner consistent with laws and regulations (including the appropriate use of all available exemptive and interpretive authority). The CFTC is requesting comment on whether it should exempt ST Gold Options, as described above, that are traded on a national securities exchange and cleared through OCC, from the CEA and the Commission's regulations thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit them to be so traded and cleared. 8 House Conf. Report No. 102-978, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, 3213 (“4(c) Conf. Report”). In proposing this exemption, the CFTC need not—and does not—find that ST Gold Options are (or are not) subject to the CEA. During the legislative process leading to the enactment of Section 4(c) of the CEA, the House-Senate Conference Committee noted that: The Conferees do not intend that the exercise of exemptive authority by the Commission would require any determination beforehand that the agreement, instrument, or transaction for which an exemption is sought is subject to the Act. Rather, this provision provides flexibility for the Commission to provide legal certainty to novel instruments where the determination as to jurisdiction is not straightforward. Rather than making a finding as to whether a product is or is not a futures contract, the Commission in appropriate cases may proceed directly to issuing an exemption. 9 9 4(c) Conf. Report at 3214-3215. ST Gold Options are “novel instruments” and the “determination as to [their] jurisdiction is not straightforward.” Given their potential usefulness to the market, however, the Commission believes that this may be an appropriate case for issuing an exemption without making a finding as to the nature of these particular instruments. Section 4(c)(2) provides that the Commission may grant exemptions only when it determines: that the requirements for which an exemption is being provided should not be applied to the agreements, contracts or transactions at issue, and the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA; that the agreements, contracts or transactions will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and that the exemption will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. 10 10 Section 4(c)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(2), provides in full that: The Commission shall not grant any exemption under paragraph

(1)from any of the requirements of subsection

(a)of this section unless the Commission determines that—

(A)The requirement should not be applied to the agreement, contract, or transaction for which the exemption is sought and that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of this Act; and

(B)The agreement, contract, or transaction—

(i)Will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and

(ii)Will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory duties under this Act. The purposes of the CEA include “promot[ing] responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants.” 11 It may be consistent with these and the other purposes of the CEA, with the public interest, with the CFTC-SEC Memorandum of Understanding of March 11, 2008, and with the addendum thereto, for the mode of trading of these transactions—whether it is to be through CFTC-regulated markets and clearing organizations or SEC-regulated markets and clearing organizations—to be determined by competitive market forces. Accordingly, the CFTC is requesting comment as to whether this exemption from the requirements of the CEA and Regulations thereunder should be granted in the context of these transactions. 11 CEA 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b). *See* also CEA 4(c)(1), 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1) (purpose of exemptions is “to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition.”) Section 4(c)(3) includes within the term “appropriate persons” a number of specified categories of persons, and also in subparagraph

(K)thereof “such other persons that the Commission determines to be appropriate in light of * * * the applicability of appropriate regulatory protections.” Both national securities exchanges and OCC, as well as their members who will intermediate these transactions, are subject to extensive and detailed regulation by the SEC under the `34 Act. The CFTC is requesting comment as to whether all persons trading ST Gold Options on national securities exchanges, and clearing such options on OCC, are appropriate persons. In light of the above, the Commission also is requesting comment as to whether this exemption will interfere with its ability to discharge its regulatory responsibilities under the CEA or with the self-regulatory duties of any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility. III. Request for Comment The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the issues presented by this proposed order. IV. Related Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 12 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The proposed exemptive order would not, if approved, require a new collection of information from any entities that would be subject to the proposed order. 12 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). B. Cost-Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the CEA, as amended by Section 119 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”), 13 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing an order under the CEA. By its terms, Section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the benefits of the order outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. 13 7 U.S.C. 19(a). Section 15(a) of the CEA further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: Protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular order was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA. The Commission is considering the costs and benefits of this proposed order in light of the specific provisions of Section 15(a) of the CEA, as follows: 1. *Protection of market participants and the public* . National securities exchanges, OCC and their members who would intermediate ST Gold Options are subject to extensive regulatory oversight. 2. *Efficiency, competition, and financial integrity.* The proposed exemption may enhance market efficiency and competition since it could encourage potential trading of ST Gold Options on markets other than designated contract markets or derivative transaction execution facilities. Financial integrity will not be affected since the ST Gold Options will be cleared by OCC, a DCO and SEC-registered clearing agency, and intermediated by SEC-registered broker-dealers. 3. *Price discovery.* Price discovery may be enhanced through market competition. 4. *Sound risk management practices.* The ST Gold Options will be subject to OCC's current risk-management practices including its margining system. 5. *Other public interest considerations.* The proposed exemption may encourage development of derivative products through market competition without unnecessary regulatory burden. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to seek comment on the proposed order as discussed above. The Commission invites public comment on its application of the cost-benefit provision. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2008 by the Commission. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Bartholomew H. Chilton to Notice of Proposed Order pursuant to Section 4(c) of the CEA which would exempt certain products related to StreetTRACKS Gold Trust Shares traded on a national securities exchange and cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation from provisions of the CEA. I respectfully dissent from the Commission's issuance of the above-referenced proposed order. Should the CFTC ultimately approve this order, it is my hope and expectation that the SEC similarly will fully exercise its broad exemptive authority under the securities laws to permit futures exchanges to trade products that are economically equivalent to those that are or may be approved for trading on national securities exchanges, and to allow designated clearing organizations to clear such products, to ensure that the futures markets are not competitively disadvantaged with regard to such products. I dissent from today's action, because I do not believe that the proposed order provides sufficient basis for or assurance of such reciprocity in the future. Bart Chilton, *Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.* [FR Doc. E8-8942 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Intelligence Agency National Defense Intelligence College Board of Visitors Closed Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Defense Intelligence College. ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection

(d)of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the Defense Intelligence Agency National Defense Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows. DATES: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Wednesday, June 4, 2008 (8 a.m. to 12 p.m.). ADDRESSES: National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, Defense Intelligence Agency National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100; telephone:

(202)231-3344. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the National Defense Intelligence College. Dated: April 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-8801 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board Closed Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings. SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board will meet in closed session on May 21-22, 2008; at the Pentagon, Arlington, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at *debra.rose@osd.mil,* or via phone at

(703)571-0084. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will discuss interim finding and recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they may affect the U. S. national defense posture and homeland security. In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that these Defense Science Board Quarterly meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), with the coordination of the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that all sessions of these meetings will be closed to the public because they will be concerned throughout with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Science Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Official at the address detailed above, at any point, however, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Science Board. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the Defense Science Board Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Defense Science Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Dated: April 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-8806 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the Secretary of Defense's Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (DAB-ESGR) AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DAB-ESGR. This meeting will focus on the status of DoD actions and recommendations from previous DAB meetings, and discussion of the board's mission and future goals. This meeting is open to the public. DATES: May 21, 2008 (8:30 a.m.4:45 p.m.) ADDRESSES: Alexandria Room, Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested attendees may contact MAJ Elaine M. Gullotta at 703-696-1385 ext 540, or e-mail at *elaine.gullotta@osd.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 8:30 Convene, (Mr. James G. Rebholz, Chairman). 8:35 Oath of Office (Mr. Frank Wilson). 8:40 Minutes approval, Due Outs from last meeting (Mr. James G. Rebholz, Chairman). 8:50 Review and discussion of DAB Nomination List (Mr. James G. Rebholz, Chairman). 9:30 Vice Admiral John G. Cotton, Chief of Navy Reserve, Commander, Navy Reserve Force. 10:45 Break. 11:00 Institute for Defense Analyses, Briefing (Mr. Colin Doyle). 12:00 Working Lunch (Discussion and Selection of DAB Nominees) (Mr. James G. Rebholz, Chairman). 1:30 Mr. Paul Wagner Presentation. 2:45 Board Discussion, Due Outs-Subcommittee tasks (Mr. James G. Rebholz, Chairman). 3:30 Break. 4:00 Summary of Proceedings, administrative announcements. 4:45 Adjourn. Dated: April 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-8803 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Threat Reduction Advisory Committee Closed Meeting AGENCY: Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); Department of Defense. ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee meeting notice. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) the Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as the Committee). DATES: Thursday, May 8, 2008, (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). ADDRESSES: Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Center Building, Brittigan Conference Room, Room 1252, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Eric Wright, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/AST, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201, Phone:

(703)767-5717, Fax:

(703)767-5701, E-mail: *eric.wright@dtra.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of Meeting:* To obtain, review and evaluate information related to the Committee's mission to advise on technology security, combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD), chemical and biological defense, transformation of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and other matters related to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's mission. *Meeting Agenda:* The Committee will receive summaries of current activities related to combating WMD as well as nuclear deterrent transformation activities from the USD AT&L, ATSD(NCB) and Director of DTRA. Panel summaries from five ad-hoc working Panels (Chemical-Biological Warfare Defense, Systems and Technology, Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, Nuclear Deterrent Transformation, and Intelligence) will be provided for committee discussion. *Meeting Accessibility:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), in consultation with the Office of the DoD General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section § 552b(c )(1) of title 5, United States Code. *Written Statements:* Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Committee at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Committee may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members. Dated: April 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-8804 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting To Discuss the TRICARE Voluntary Agreements for Retail Refunds (VARRs) Program AGENCY: Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In response to pharmaceutical industry interest in the TRICARE VARRs Program, Department of Defense will host a meeting to discuss policies and procedures for VARRs. DATES: Thursday, May 1, 2008 (8 a.m.-12 p.m.). ADDRESSES: Marriott Wardman Park, 2600 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTC Travis Watson, Deputy Director, Skyline 5, Suite 810, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3206, Telephone:

(703)681-2890; Fax:

(703)681-1940, E-mail Address: *UFVARR@tma.osd.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide pharmaceutical manufacturers the policies and procedures TRICARE Management Activity uses under the VARRs Program. *Meeting Agenda:* Sign-in; welcome and opening remarks; review of program; discussion of reporting; questions and answers; closing remarks. *Meeting Accessibility:* The availability of space in this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and all persons must sign in legibly. *Written Statements:* The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to *UFVARR@tma.osd.mil* at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Dated: April 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-8802 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Record of Decision To Develop, Test, Deploy, and Plan for Decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency

(MDA)is issuing this Record of Decision

(ROD)to develop, test, deploy, and plan for decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This decision includes the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of land-, sea- and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components and space-based sensors. This action will enable MDA to develop and field an integrated, layered, BMDS to defend the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. The BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the BMDS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS)or this ROD please contact Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Director of Public Affairs at

(703)697-8997. Downloadable electronic versions of the Final PEIS and ROD are available on the MDA public access Internet Web site *http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html.* Public reading copies of the Final PEIS and the ROD are available for review at the following public libraries: • Anchorage Municipal Library (Anchorage, AK). • Mountain View Branch Library (Anchorage, AK). • California State Library (Sacramento, CA). • Sacramento Public Library (Sacramento, CA). • Hawaii State Library (Honolulu, HI). • University of Hawaii at Manoa (Honolulu, HI). • Arlington County Public Library, Central Branch (Arlington, VA). • District of Columbia Public Library, Central Branch (Washington, DC). Dated: April 11, 2008. Patricia Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. MDA Decision The MDA is issuing this ROD, selecting Alternative 1 as described in the BMDS PEIS, to develop, test, deploy, and plan for decommissioning of the BMDS. This decision includes the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of land-, sea-, and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components. Alternative 1 also includes space-based sensors. MDA is deferring a decision on the development, testing, and deployment of space-based interceptors (Alternative 2) pending further concept development and policy discussion. B. Background The MDA has a requirement to develop, test, deploy, and prepare for decommissioning the BMDS to protect the U.S., its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The proposed action would provide an integrated BMDS using existing infrastructure and capabilities, when feasible, as well as emerging and new technologies, to meet current and evolving threats in support of the MDA's mission. Consequently, the BMDS would be a layered system of defensive weapons, sensors, command and control, battle management, and communications (C2BMC), and support assets; each with specific functional capabilities, working together to defend against all classes and ranges of ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight. Multiple defensive weapons would be used to create a layered defense comprised of multiple intercept opportunities along the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missiles. This would provide a layered defensive system of capabilities designed to back up one another. On December 17, 2002, the President announced his decision to field an initial defensive operation capability. The initial fielding would provide a modest protection of the U.S. and would be improved over time. Prior to the initiation of the BMDS PEIS, MDA and its predecessor agencies prepared several programmatic National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)documents regarding ballistic missile defense. In addition, each program element prepared extensive NEPA documentation to cover its own specific test and development activities. Ballistic missile defense has evolved to the point that the BMDS PEIS was prepared to consider the integrated BMDS as envisioned in the evolution of the MDA. A Programmatic EIS, or PEIS, analyzes the broad envelope of environmental consequences in a wide-ranging Federal program like the BMDS. A PEIS addresses the overall issues in a proposed program and considers related actions together in order to review the program comprehensively. A PEIS is appropriate for projects that are broad in scope, are implemented in phases, and are widely dispersed geographically. A PEIS creates a comprehensive, global analytical framework that supports subsequent analysis of specific activities at specific locations, which could then be tiered from the PEIS. The BMDS PEIS is intended to serve as a tiering document for subsequent specific BMDS NEPA analyses and includes a roadmap for considering environmental impacts and resource areas in developing future documents. This roadmap identifies how a specific resource area can be analyzed and also includes thresholds for considering the significance of environmental impacts to specific resource areas. This means that ranges, installations, and facilities at which specific BMDS activities may occur in the future could tier their documents from the PEIS and have some reference point from which to start their site-specific analyses. C. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)Process The MDA prepared the BMDS PEIS pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); Department of Defense

(DoD)Instruction 4715.9, *Environmental Planning and Analysis;* the applicable service environmental regulations that implement these laws and regulations; and Executive Order

(EO)12114, *Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions* (whose implementation is guided by NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations). On April 11, 2003, MDA initiated the public scoping process by publishing the Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare the PEIS for the BMDS in the **Federal Register** . MDA held public scoping meetings in Arlington, Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Honolulu, Hawaii. The Notice of Availability

(NOA)of the MDA BMDS Draft PEIS was published in the **Federal Register** on September 17, 2004. This initiated a public review and comment period for the Draft PEIS. MDA held public hearings in Arlington, Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Honolulu, Hawaii. MDA received approximately 8,500 comments on the Draft PEIS; MDA considered all of these comments in preparing the Final PEIS. Responses to all of the in-scope comments can be found in Appendix K of the PEIS. Three recurring issues of public concern—orbital debris, perchlorate, and radar impacts to wildlife—were addressed in more technical detail in Appendices L, M, and N, respectively, of the PEIS. The NOA for the Final PEIS was published in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 2007. This ROD is the culmination of the NEPA process. D. Alternatives Considered In developing the alternatives, MDA reviewed the various components of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets) and the acquisition process common to all components (i.e., development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning). The components are the systems and subsystems of logically grouped hardware and software that perform interrelated tasks to provide the BMDS functional capabilities. The acquisition process is capability driven and component-based. Capability-based planning allows MDA to develop capabilities and system performance objectives based on technological feasibility, engineering analyses, and the potential capability of the threat. Spiral development is an iterative process for developing the BMDS by refining program objectives as technology becomes available through research and testing with continuous feedback among MDA, the test community, and the military operators. Each new technology goes through development; promising technologies go through testing and demonstration; and proven technologies are incorporated into the BMDS. • *Development.* Development includes the various activities that support research and development of the BMDS components and overall systems. This includes planning, budgeting, research and development, systems engineering, site preparation and construction, repair, maintenance and sustainment, manufacture of test articles and initial testing, including modeling, simulation, and tabletop exercises. • *Testing.* Testing of the BMDS involves demonstration of BMDS elements and components through test and evaluation. The successful demonstration of the BMDS would rely on a robust testing program aimed at producing credible system characterization, verification, and assessment data. To confirm these capabilities, MDA would continue to develop test beds using existing and new land-, sea-, air-, and space-based assets. Some construction at various geographic locations would be required to support infrastructure and assets where BMDS components and the overall system would be tested. Testing of the BMDS includes ongoing and planned tests (e.g., ground tests, flight tests) of components that might be incorporated into the BMDS, as well as tests of the layered, integrated BMDS through increasingly realistic system integration tests through 2012 and beyond. • *Deployment.* Deployment of the BMDS refers to the fielding (including the manufacture, site preparation, construction, and transport of systems) and sustainment (including operations and maintenance, training, upgrades, and service life extension) of the BMDS. The evolving BMDS is intended to have the capability over time to deploy different combinations of interoperable components. Deployment also would involve the transfer of facilities, elements, and programs to the military services. • *Decommissioning.* Decommissioning would involve the demilitarization and final removal and disposal of the BMDS components and assets. Plans would be made for decommissioning BMDS components by either demolition or transfer to other uses or owners. The following presents a discussion of the alternatives considered by MDA and presents and contrasts the components and acquisition phases that are unique to each alternative. *No Action Alternative:* Under the No Action Alternative, the MDA would not develop, test, deploy, or plan for decommissioning activities for an integrated BMDS. Instead, the MDA would continue existing development and testing of discrete systems as stand-alone ballistic missile defense capabilities. Individual systems would continue to be tested but would not be subjected to System Integration Tests. *Alternative 1 (selected alternative):* Under Alternative 1, the MDA will develop, test, deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, and air-based components. Alternative 1 also includes space-based sensors, but does not include space-based interceptors. *Alternative 2:* Under Alternative 2, the MDA would develop, test, deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, air-, and space-based components. Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1, with the addition of space-based interceptors. A space-based test bed would be considered and evaluated to determine the feasibility of using kinetic energy interceptors on space platforms to intercept threat missiles. E. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives The PEIS evaluated potential impacts associated with each alternative for each acquisition life cycle phase (i.e., development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning) by component (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets). To evaluate the potential impacts of implementing one of the alternatives (i.e., No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2) considered for the BMDS, the MDA characterized the existing condition of the affected environment in the locations where various BMDS implementation activities would occur. The affected environment includes all land, air, water, and atmospheric environments where proposed activities are reasonably foreseeable. For this PEIS, the affected environment includes all locations, ranges, installations, and facilities that the MDA has used, uses, or proposes to use for the BMDS both within and outside the U.S. The MDA determined that activities associated with the proposed BMDS might occur in locations around the world. Therefore, the affected environment has been considered in terms of global biomes, broad ocean areas, and the atmosphere. Each biome covers a broad region, both geographically and ecologically for both domestic and international locations where components of the proposed BMDS may be located or operated. Climate, geography, geology, and distribution and abundance of vegetation and wildlife determine the range of the biomes. Using biomes as affected environmental designations facilitates future site-specific environmental documentation to tier from the BMDS PEIS. Further, BMDS test activities would often occur over broad ocean areas, and the necessity of launching targets and interceptors to support testing would indicate that consideration of the atmosphere and broad ocean areas as parts of the affected environment was appropriate. To evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives, the components of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets) were evaluated as they proceed through acquisition life cycle phases. MDA evaluated each of the BMDS acquisition phases including development, testing, deployment, and decommissioning. Not all activities associated with the BMDS are expected to produce environmental impacts. Only those activities with expected impacts during one or more acquisition phases were identified in the PEIS. Further, only those activities that are considered reasonably foreseeable were analyzed in the PEIS. Four steps were used to analyze impacts in the BMDS PEIS. Step 1 included the identification and characterization of BMDS activities. Step 2 included the identification of activities with no potential for impact. Step 3 included the identification of similar activities occurring across acquisition life cycle phases. Step 4 included the conduct of environmental analyses. The analyses for each alternative are specific to each resource area based on the impacts from the activities associated with the BMDS components. The potential impacts of the various alternatives are summarized in Exhibits ES-7 through ES-13 in the Final BMDS PEIS (available on the MDA Web site *http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html* and are as discussed in the Final BMDS PEIS. This ROD presents a brief discussion that highlights the differences between the alternatives. Alternative 1 would result in the potential for increased environmental consequences over the No Action Alternative due to the additional integrated test events and the development and testing of an integrated C2BMC. The additional potential for environmental consequences associated with the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of the space-based interceptors in Alternative 2 could result in environmental consequences that would be in addition to those associated with Alternative 1. The increase in potential impacts associated with the development and acquisition phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action Alternative would result from increased testing and the site preparation and development of new facilities or the refurbishment of existing facilities for C2BMC, or to develop space-based missile defense technologies. The site preparation may result in additional impacts on the land-based resources (i.e., biological, geology and soils, noise, water), but would not impact non-land based resources (i.e., airspace or orbital debris). The increase in potential impacts associated with the testing acquisition phase of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action Alternative would result from an increased number of test events, specifically, system integration tests. The increase in the number of test events would result in additional impacts on all resource areas, and based on the specific activities and objectives of an individual test event, impacts on some resources might be insignificant as demonstrated in the PEIS, while impacts to other resources would be more substantial. The increase in potential impacts associated with the deployment acquisition phase of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would result from the site preparation, development, and emplacement of new facilities or the refurbishment of existing facilities for deployment of space-based interceptors. The site preparation may result in additional impacts on the land-based resources (e.g., biological, geology and soils, noise, water), and placing interceptors into space could produce impacts on non-land based resources (e.g., airspace or orbital debris). The increase in potential impacts associated with the planning for decommissioning of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would result from the additional BMDS components that would require decommissioning. No significant environmental impacts or cumulative impacts on resource areas addressed for any activity considered in implementing the BMDS were found in this programmatic impact analysis. There could be impacts associated with the specific BMDS program activities at specific locations; however, as stated in the PEIS they would be addressed, as appropriate, in subsequent NEPA analyses that would tier from the PEIS. As appropriate, mitigation measures would be developed to address any site-specific significant impacts. F. Mitigation Monitoring MDA did not identify any significant programmatic environmental impacts arising from the proposed action and therefore, is not identifying specific mitigation measures. However, as discussed above, there is the potential for specific BMDS activities at specific locations to impact the environment, and mitigation measures would be identified, as appropriate, in future NEPA analyses tiered from this PEIS. MDA uses a mitigation monitoring database to track the implementation of mitigation measures identified in previous NEPA analyses and will continue to follow its mitigation monitoring process (EMP-3-62, Mitigation Monitoring) to both track and monitor the effectiveness of MDA's mitigation measures, including those identified in future, site-specific NEPA analyses tiered from this PEIS. G. Environmentally Preferred Alternative The findings of the PEIS indicate that the No Action Alternative, the continuation of existing program element-based testing and development activities with no integration testing, would be the environmentally-preferred alternative. As a conservative estimate, MDA assumed that stand-alone element component testing as well as system integration testing would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2, which would result in potentially more adverse effects than the No Action Alternative. However, MDA believes that consolidation of stand-alone component tests associated with Alternative 1 into the system integration tests to the extent practicable could serve to reduce the overall environmental consequences as the total number of tests conducted by MDA could fall. H. Conclusion I have considered potential environmental impacts as defined in the PEIS, cost, technical requirements, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, Presidential direction (the December 17, 2002, Presidential announcement to field an initial defensive operation capability), MDA's mandate and mission, and public comments in arriving at my decision. I select Alternative 1 over the other alternatives for implementation of the proposed action. Although the No Action Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-preferred alternative, it does not support the Agency's mandate or mission. Alternative 1 has fewer environmental consequences than Alternative 2, as described above. I have selected Alternative 1 because integration of missile defense capabilities as opposed to single element development, testing, and deployment is essential to an effective BMDS that can provide a layered defense of the United States, its deployed troops, and its friends and allies. Any decision to deploy a BMDS capability will be subject to Presidential and Congressional authorization and funding. Date: April 8, 2008. Henry A. Obering III, *Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.* [FR Doc. E8-8800 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)review; comment request SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE)has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its 2008 Procurement Package, OMB Control Number 1910-4100. This information collection request covers information necessary to evaluate proposals and administer contracts related to management contractors managing the Department's major facilities and other contractors furnishing goods and services. DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before May 23, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The OMB Desk Officer for DOE may be telephoned at 202-395-4650. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; and to: U.S. Department of Energy, MA-61, Attn: Richard Langston, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Langston, Procurement Policy Analyst, at *Richard.langston@hq.doe.gov* or

(202)287-1339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request contains:

(1)OMB No. 1910-4100;

(2)Information Collection Request Title: DOE 2008 Procurement Package;

(3)Purpose: This information collection request covers information necessary to evaluate proposals and administer contracts related to management contractors managing the Department's major facilities and other contractors furnishing goods and services;

(4)Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,539;

(5)Estimated Total Burden Hours: 896,209;

(6)Number of Collections: The information collection request contains 47 information and/or recordkeeping requirements. A notice and request for comment was previously published concerning this collection at 73 FR 7538 on February 8, 2008. No comments were received. Statutory Authority: Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP)Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 405). Issued in Washington, DC on April 17, 2008. Edward R. Simpson, Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management. [FR Doc. E8-8768 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Electricity Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the first meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . *Date and Time:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 8:30 a.m.—12:30 p.m. EDT. *Location:* The meeting will be held at the Sheraton National Hotel located at 900 South Orme Street, Arlington, Virginia 22204. *Agenda:* See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The Electricity Advisory Committee

(EAC)was established in 2008 by DOE to provide expert advice on complex scientific, technical, and policy issues that arise in the planning, managing, and implementation of DOE's electricity programs. The committee is composed of approximately 30 individuals of diverse backgrounds selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to electricity. *Purpose of the Meeting:* The first meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee is expected to include discussion of the first year objectives of the Committee, introductions of Committee Members and a discussion of establishing subcommittees on specific subjects. *Tentative Agenda:* The meeting will host a discussion on advice to the Department of Energy on matters related to electricity supply adequacy. The meeting agenda may change to accommodate committee business. For Committee agenda updates, see the Committee Web site at: *http://www.oe.energy.gov/eac.htm.* *Public Participation:* Any member of the public interested in offering comments at the Committee meeting may do so on the day of the meeting, Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but is not expected to exceed three minutes. Anyone who is not able to attend the meeting or had insufficient time to address the committee is invited to send a written statement to Mr. David Meyer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 or e-mail *david.meyer@hq.doe.gov.* The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you may only submit your comments by mail, and you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11). Note: Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE continues to be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE therefore encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by e-mail. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission. *Minutes:* The minutes of the first meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee are expected to be available within 45 days of the meeting on the Committee Website at *http://www.oe.energy.gov/eac.htm* or by contacting Mr. David Meyer at

(202)586-1411 or e-mail *david.meyer@hq.doe.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Meyer, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone

(202)586-1411; e-mail *david.meyer@hq.doe.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on April 18, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8769 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting and retreat. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; Thursday, May 22, 2008, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Holiday Inn, Santa Fe, 4048 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone

(505)995-0393; Fax

(505)989-1752 or E-mail: *msantistevan@doeal.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Board:* The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda Retreat—Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9 a.m.—Welcome and Introductions, Ed Moreno. 9:05 a.m.—Round Robin—Expectations for Retreat, Board Members. 9:15 a.m.—“Lesson Learned” from the Material Disposal Area-G Forum, Ralph Phelps. 9:30 a.m.—Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB) Surveys, Larry Rapagnani. 10 a.m.—Break. 10:15 a.m.—Overview of NNMCAB Bylaws, EM SSAB Guidance and Administrative Procedures, Christina Houston. 11:45 a.m.—Lunch Break. 1 p.m.—View “The Manhattan Project” * * * 1:45 p.m.—Department of Energy, Los Alamos Site Office, George Rael: • Top Three Priorities; • EM Baseline; • Funding Issues; • Impacts of Delayed Funding. 2:30 p.m.—Break. 2:45 p.m.—Consent Order Table of Contents and Schedule, James Bearzi: • Background and Development; • Outline of Contents; • Components: 1. Characterization; 2. Corrective Measures Evaluation; 3. Selection of Remedy. 3:15 p.m.—New Mexico Environment Department

(NMED)Critical Issues, James Bearzi: • How Selected; • NMED Issues of Concern; • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)Permit Renewal: ○ Top Three Issues: 1. Groundwater Monitoring; 2. Remedy Selection; 3. Permit Renewal. 3:45 p.m.—Consent Order, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Dave McInroy: • LANL EM Program Master Plan; • Progress in Clean-up; • Future Activities. 4:15 p.m.—Environmental Protection Agency, Rich Mayer: • Federal Facilities Compliance Act; • Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 4:45 p.m.—NNMCAB Communications: • Web site Training, Lorelei Novak; • Distribution of Information to Members. 5:15 p.m.—Wrap up Discussion, Ed Moreno. 5:30 p.m.—Adjourn. Meeting—Thursday, May 22, 2008 9 a.m.—Call to Order by Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Christina Houston. Establishment of a Quorum, Lorelei Novak. Welcome, Ed Moreno. Approval of Agenda, J. D. Campbell. Approval of Minutes of March 26, 2008, Board Meeting, J.D. Campbell. 9:05 a.m.—Old Business, Ed Moreno: • Written Reports; • Other Matters. 9:15 a.m.—New Business, Ed Moreno: • Election of Vice-Chair, Board Members; • Consideration and Action on Proposed Amendments to NNMCAB Bylaws, Menice Santistevan. 9:45 a.m.—Committee Business/Reports: • Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance, and Remediation Committee, Introduction of Draft Recommendation(s), Pam Henline; • Waste Management Committee, Introduction of Draft Recommendation(s), Ralph Phelps. 10:30 a.m.—Break. 10:45 a.m.—Presentation on San Ildefonso Pueblo Tribal Risk Assessment, Raymond Martinez. 11:30 a.m.—Public Comment. 11:45 a.m.—Lunch Break. 1 p.m.—Committees Prepare Draft Fiscal Year 2009 Work Plans, Ed Moreno. 2:30 p.m.—Break. 2:45 p.m.—Committees Continue Work on Draft Fiscal Year 2009 Work Plans, Ed Moreno. 3:45 p.m.—Wrap up Discussion, Ed Moreno. 4 p.m.—Adjourn, Christina Houston. This agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the meeting. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. *Minutes:* Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: *http://www.nnmcab.org/minutes/board-minutes.htm.* Issued at Washington, DC, on April 18, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8770 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 April 16, 2008. *Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:* *Docket Numbers:* ER96-719-020; ER97-2801-021; ER99-2156-014. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company; PacifiCorp; Cordova Energy Company LLC. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company *et al.* submits Notice of Change regarding MidAmerican's ownership of certain generation facilities. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0200. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-780-019; ER01-1633-007; ER00-3240-010; ER03-1383-010. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Companies submits substitute tariff sheets in compliance with FERC's Order 697. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0266. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2541-009; ER05-731-003; ER97-3556-017; ER04-582-007; ER99-221-012; ER99-220-014; ER01-1764-006; ER97-3553-005. *Applicants:* Carthage Energy, LLC; Central Maine Power Company; Energetix, Inc.; Hartford Steam Company; New York State Electric & Gas Corp.; NYSEG Solutions, Inc.; PEI Power II, LLC; Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. *Description:* Carthage Energy, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0265. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-552-011; ER03-984-009. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits its Status Report complying with the February 22, order. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-5057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-682-001. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Co. submits a request to withdraw First Revised Sheet 131 to their 3/17/08 filing. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-822-000. *Applicants:* Old Lane Commodities, LP. *Description:* Old Lane Commodities, LP submits a notice of cancellation of its market based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-823-000. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Co. submits certain modifications to non-rate terms and conditions in its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0198. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-825-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits Amendment 1 to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Large Generator Interconnection Agreement Service 1168. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-826-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits an executed large generator interconnection agreement with the Village of Arcade *et al.* *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-827-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an interconnection service agreement among PJM Virginia Electric and Power Company and Virginia Electric and Power Company designated as Original Service Agreement 1878. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-828-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Texas Central Company submits an executed generation interconnection agreement dated 3/25/08 with Victoria ELE, LP. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-60-003. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Company's OATT Errata Filing pursuant to the March 19, 2008 order, Order No. 890. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-5000. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-14-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Request of the Midwest ISO for Waiver of Conversion Requirement. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-5026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-83-001. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Co submits their request to withdraw sheets from its 3/17/08 compliance filing and commits to re-file the pro forma rollover reforms within 30 days, OA08-83. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-0053. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 05, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-102-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-5099. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-103-000. *Applicants:* WSPP Inc. *Description:* WSPP Inc's Order No. 890-A OATT Filing. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-5002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-104-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool's Order No. 890-A OATT Filing. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-5003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-105-000. *Applicants:* Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-5032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings: *Docket Numbers:* QM08-5-000. *Applicants:* United Illuminating Company, The. *Description:* The United Illuminating Co submits an application for relief on a service territory-wide basis from the provisions of Section 292.303(a). *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080416-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8746 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 April 15, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-69-000. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of New Mexico. *Description:* Public Service Company of New Mexico's Application for Approval to acquire from its affiliate PNMR Development and Management Company all interests in a trust that holds certain ownership interests etc. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0157. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-70-000. *Applicants:* KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC. *Description:* KeySpan Ravenswood, LLC submits an Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0159. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-71-000. *Applicants:* PNM Resources, Inc., PNM Merger Sub LLC, Public Service Company of New Mexico, NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative. *Description:* Joint application for approval of the disposition of jurisdictional facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act re PNM Resources Inc *et al.* *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0156. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-72-000. *Applicants:* Industry Funds Management (Nominees) Lim, Industry Funds Management Pty Ltd, Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC, Duquesne Keystone, LLC, Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC. *Description:* Industry Funds Management (Nominees) Limited submits an application for authorization for the dispoosition of jurisdictional facilities. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0166. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-58-000. *Applicants:* West Valley Leasing Company LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of West Valley Leasing Company LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-5105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 5, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-59-000. *Applicants:* Winnebago Windpower LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Winnebago Windpower LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-5033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:* *Docket Numbers:* ER03-552-011; ER03-984-009. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits its Status Report complying with the February 22, order. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-5057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-719-009; ER03-720-009; ER03-721-009; ER98-830-018. *Applicants:* New Athens Generating Company, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC, Millennium Power Partners, L.P. *Description:* New Athens Generating Co, LLC *et al.* submits notice of non-material change in status concerning a change in upstream ownership etc. *Filed Date:* 04/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080411-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-301-001. *Applicants:* Covanta Fairfax, Inc. *Description:* Covanta Fairfax, Inc., submits First Amended and Restatement of Power Purchase and Operating Agreement. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 5, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-526-001. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric Co., submits Second Revised Sheet 136 *et al.* to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-675-001. *Applicants:* Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. *Description:* Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc submits Attachment A as additional cost support for the 3/17/08 filing of an amendment to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 3. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080411-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-814-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison submits the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service with Daggett Ridge Wind Farm, LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080411-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-815-000. *Applicants:* Portland General Electric Company. *Description:* Portland General Electric Company submits amendments to certain non-rate terms and conditions of its Open Access Transmission Tariff, PGE request that the Commission waive its prior notice requirements and accept such revisions etc. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080411-0048. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-816-000. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co., submits its Fourth Revised Rate Schedule 132. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-818-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc., submits proposed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-819-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits proposed amendment to Section 40.5.2.2.1 re resource adequacy import allocation provisions. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0195. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-820-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection submits revisions to PJM's Open Access Transmission, Amended and Restated Operating Agreement, and Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement, Rate Schedule 42 etc. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-821-000; ER97-4587-008. *Applicants:* Hazleton Generation LLC; Williams Generation Company—Hazleton. *Description:* Williams Generation Co-Hazelton submits a notice of change in status and notice of succession. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0193. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-824-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and PJM Operating Agreement. *Filed Date:* 04/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0197. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 5, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-36-001. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits an amendment to the application of the California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080414-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ES08-43-000. *Applicants:* NSTAR Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric Co submits application for authorization to issue short-term debt securities pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-101-001. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric's Compliance Filing Pursuant to March 11, 2008 Order. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080410-5062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 1, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-40-002. *Applicants:* Portland General Electric Company. *Description:* Portland General Electric Company's revised tariff sheets to their Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to Order No. 890. *Filed Date:* 04/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080411-5007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-13-001. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator Inc submits proposed amendments to its Open Access Transmission Tariff in compliance with Order 890 requirements governing the clustering of transmission studies. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-0155. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-101-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080415-5095. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 06, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8747 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 April 09, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER97-2872-005; ER97-4234-076. *Applicants:* Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. *Description:* Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 1 and 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 in compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 04/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0021. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2284-009; ER99-1773-009; ER99-1761-005; ER00-1026-016; ER01-1315-005; ER01-2401-011; ER98-2184-014; ER98-2186-015; ER00-33-011; ER05-442-003; ER98-2185-014; ER99-1228-007; ER97-2904-008; ER01-751-010. *Applicants:* AEE 2 LLC; AES Creative Resources LP; AES Eastern Energy, LP; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; AES IRONWOOD LLC; AES RED OAK LLC; AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C.; AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C.; AES Placerita Inc.; Condon Wind Power, LLC; AES Alamitos, Inc.; Storm Lake Power Partners II LLC; Lake Benton Power Partners LLC; Mountain View Power Partners, LLC. *Description:* The AES MBR Affiliates submits notice of change in status in connection with the indirect acquisition by AES of Mountainview Power Partners, LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-2268-026; ER99-4124-023; ER99-4122-027; ER07-428-005; EL07-82-002. *Applicants:* Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Arizona Public Service Company; Aps Energy Services Co Inc; Pinnacle West Marketing & Trading Co, LLC; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation. *Description:* Arizona Public Service Company submits an errata and Substitute Second Revised Sheet 2, FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 3 to the compliance filing previously filed on 3/17/08. *Filed Date:* 04/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-9-010; ER98-2157-011. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc., Kansas Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Notice of Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc., and Kansas Gas and Electric Company. *Filed Date:* 04/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-5049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-717-001. *Applicants:* Tucson Electric Power Company. *Description:* Tucson Electric Power Company submits an executed “Control Area Services Agreement with UNS Electric Inc dated 3/20/08. *Filed Date:* 04/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080409-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-747-000. *Applicants:* Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC. *Description:* Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC submits a Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 03/31/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080401-0094. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-796-000. *Applicants:* ITC Midwest LLC. *Description:* ITC Midwest, LLC submits a proposed Attachment FF Section III.A.2.d.3 International/METC/ITC Midwest to their Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0043. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-797-000. *Applicants:* HEEP Fund Inc. *Description:* HEEP Fund, Inc requests acceptance of its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1 etc. *Filed Date:* 04/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-798-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* Ohio Power Co and Columbus Southern Power Co submits first revision to the Interconnection Agreement with American Transmission Systems, Inc. *Filed Date:* 04/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-799-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits a Master Services Agreement and associated Transaction Forms. *Filed Date:* 04/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080408-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-801-000. *Applicants:* Berkshire Power Company, LLC. *Description:* Berkshire Power Company LLC submits their proposed revisions to their Rate Schedule FERC 2 to reflect the merger of one party to the rate schedule with Shell Energy North America LP. *Filed Date:* 04/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080409-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-802-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed interconnection service agreement and an executed construction service agreement with Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Company *et al.* *Filed Date:* 04/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080409-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 28, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8748 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 April 17, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-73-000. *Applicants:* PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, BE Ironwood LLC. *Description:* PPL EnergyPlus, LLC and BE Ironwood LLC submits a joint application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional facilities. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-60-000. *Applicants:* Sheldon Energy LLC. *Description:* Sheldon Energy LLC submits its Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-61-000. *Applicants:* Gunsight Mountain Wind Energy LLC. *Description:* Gunsight Mountain Wind Energy LLC submits their Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0040. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-62-000. *Applicants:* Willow Creek Energy LLC. *Description:* Willow Creek Energy LLC submits a notice of self-certification of its status as an exempt wholesale generator. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0039. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER08-441-003. *Applicants:* Velocity American Energy Master I, L.P. Description: Velocity American Energy Master I, LP submits Substitute Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-829-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc *et al.* submits revised tariff sheets & supporting testimony of Jonathan B Lowell re proposed revisions to Section 6.4.4 & Appendix F of the Market Rule I to exclude the Real-Time Load Obligations etc. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-830-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England Inc submits revised tariff sheet reflecting a proposed revision of Market Rule related to the Day-Ahead Load Response Program. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0027. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-833-000. *Applicants:* Progress Energy Service Company. *Description:* Progress Energy Services Co *et al.* submits an executed 230 kV Facilities Interconnection Agreement with Florida Power Corp. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-834-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc's proposed amendments to certain Market Power Mitigation Measures set forth in Attachment H to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-835-000. *Applicants:* Polytop Corporation. *Description:* Polytop Corporation submits Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0028. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-25-003. *Applicants:* DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. *Description:* Order No. 890 Penalty Refund Report OATT Filing of DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. *Filed Date:* 04/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-5029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-113-001. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of New Mexico. *Description:* Public Service Company of New Mexico submits First Revised Sheet 135 *et al.* to Second Revised Volume 6 Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0038. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 2, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-106-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits the FPA Section 206 Compliance Filing of Non-Rate Terms and Conditions as set forth in Order 890-A. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-12-001; OA08-62-001. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp. submits compliance filing to comply with Order 890 and 890-Ader OA08-12 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-107-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits compliance filing like the NYISO's 10/11/07 compliance filing proposes certain revisions to response to Order 890 October 11, filing etc. *Filed Date:* 04/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080417-0035. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8785 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0520, EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0585; FRL-8556-8] Adequacy Status of the Indiana and Ohio Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Transportation Conformity Purposes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area are adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations. Indiana submitted the Cincinnati-Hamilton budgets with an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration on June 13, 2007. As a result of our finding, the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for future transportation conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective May 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-8777, *Maietta.anthony@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Background Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On March 6, 2008, EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management stating that the 2008 MVEBs for the Indiana and Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area, which were submitted with the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration, are adequate. Receipt of these MVEBs was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site, and no comments were submitted. The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: * http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.* The adequate 2008 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for VOC and NO X for the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area are as follows: 2008 MVEB

(tpd)VOC 72.16 NO X 18.99 Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's transportation conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.* Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Dated: April 11, 2008. Margaret Guerriero, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-8858 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0311; FRL-8361-8] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA)requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice

(PMN)or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008, consists of the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. DATES: Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0311, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0311. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is

(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0311. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(G)Pigment additive for industrial coatings and ink manufacture and for plastics compounding

(G)Naphthalenesulfonic acid, [(methyl-sulfophenyl)diazenyl]-hydroxy-metal salt P-08-0211 02/01/08 04/30/08 CBI

(G)Integrated circuits manufacturing

(G)Aluminum complex P-08-0212 02/04/08 05/03/08 CBI

(G)Chemical intermediate

(G)Tetrafluoro nitrotoluene P-08-0213 02/04/08 05/03/08 Grain Processing Corporation

(G)Highly dispersive use

(G)Corn by product P-08-0214 02/04/08 05/03/08 CBI

(S)Aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer used in ultra violet curable inks and coatings

(G)Aromatic urethane acrylate polymer P-08-0215 02/05/08 05/04/08 CBI

(G)Adhesive

(S)Fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsaturated, me esters, epoxidized, polymers with ethylene glycol P-08-0216 02/05/08 05/04/08 CBI

(G)Industrial coating

(G)Amino-modified multifunctional acrylate P-08-0217 02/06/08 05/05/08 CBI

(G)Pigment additive for industrial coatings and ink manufacture and for plastics compounding

(G)Naphthalenesulfonic acid, [(methyl-sulfophenyl)diazenyl]-hydroxy-metal salt P-08-0218 02/06/08 05/05/08 CBI

(G)Sealant and waterproof membrane

(G)Isocyanate terminated polymer with polyoxyalkylene polyols and isocyanate P-08-0219 02/07/08 05/06/08 Boulder Scientific Company

(S)Chemical intermediate

(S)1,3-cyclopentadiene, 5-butyl- P-08-0220 02/08/08 05/07/08 CBI

(G)Coatings

(G)Acrylate ester P-08-0221 02/08/08 05/07/08 CBI

(G)Textile treatment additive

(G)Fluoroalkyl methacrylate copolymer P-08-0222 02/08/08 05/07/08 CBI

(G)Paper treatment additive

(G)Fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer P-08-0223 02/08/08 05/07/08 CBI

(G)Carpet treatment additive

(G)Fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer P-08-0224 02/08/08 05/07/08 CBI

(G)Textile treatment additive

(G)Fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer P-08-0225 02/11/08 05/10/08 The Lubrizol Corporation

(S)Metalworking fluid additive (lubricity, anti-corrosion)

(S)2-propanol, 1,1′-iminobis-, compound with .alpha.-butyl-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)] phosphate P-08-0226 02/11/08 05/10/08 The Lubrizol Corporation

(S)Metalworking fluid additive (lubricity, anti-corrosion)

(S)1-propanol, 2-amino-2-methyl-, compound with .alpha.-butyl-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)] phosphate P-08-0227 02/11/08 05/10/08 The Lubrizol Corporation

(S)Metalworking fluid additive (lubricity, anti-corrosion); machine (metalworking) cleaners

(S)Ethanol, 2,2′,2′′-nitrilotris-, compound with .alpha.-butyl-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)] phosphate P-08-0228 02/11/08 05/10/08 The Lubrizol Corporation

(S)Metalworking fluid additive (lubricity, anti-corrosion); machine (metalworking) cleaners

(S)Ethanol, 2-amino-, compound with .alpha.-butyl-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)] phosphate P-08-0229 02/11/08 05/10/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Polyether and trialkylsilylalkylamine modified polyurethane P-08-0230 02/11/08 05/10/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Trialkoxysilylalkylene modified polydialkylsiloxane P-08-0231 02/11/08 05/10/08 Cognis Corporation

(G)Lubricant

(S)Fatty acids, C 8-10 , tetraesters with sorbitan P-08-0232 02/11/08 05/10/08 Mane, USA

(G)Perfumery ingredient

(S)2 *H* -pyran, 5,6-dihydro-4-methyl-2-[(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)methyl]- P-08-0233 02/12/08 05/11/08 Rahn USA Corp.

(S)Ultra violet/electron beam inks. The pmn substance acts as a reactive resin in such blends; ultra violet/electron beam coatings. The pmn substance acts as a reactive resin in such blends; ultra violet /electron beam putty/sealent. The pmn subtance acts as a reactive resin in such blends; ultra violet/electron beam adhesives. The pmn substance acts as a reactive resin in such blends; ultra violet/electron beam = ultra violet / electron beam reactive formulations.

(G)Alkyd based intermediate resin P-08-0234 02/12/08 05/11/08 3M

(G)Prepolymer

(G)Bisphenol A - epichlorohydrin amine copolymer P-08-0235 02/13/08 05/12/08 CBI

(S)Ingredient in fragrance compound

(G)Heteropolyclic lactone P-08-0236 02/13/08 05/12/08 Zeon Chemicals L.P.

(S)Automotive seals and gaskets

(G)Acrylate copolymer P-08-0237 02/13/08 05/12/08 CBI

(S)Aromatic acrylic polymer used in automobile and other metal coatings

(G)Aromatic acrylate polymer P-08-0238 02/13/08 05/12/08 CBI

(G)Resin for ink

(G)Water-borne silicone grafted (meth)acrylic copolymer P-08-0239 02/11/08 05/10/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Alkenyltrialkoxysilane modified polysiloxane P-08-0240 02/13/08 05/12/08 Hydrite Chemical Company

(G)Intermediate in defoaming agent

(G)Organic silicone intermediate P-08-0241 02/13/08 05/12/08 Eastman Kodak Company

(G)Contained use in an article; sale for industrial applications

(G)Triazole substituted polyheterocycle, salt P-08-0242 02/20/08 05/19/08 Cargill, Incorporated, Office Center

(S)Food; plasticizer

(S)1,2,3,4-butanetetrol meso-erythritol P-08-0243 02/20/08 05/19/08 CBI

(S)Intermediate for polyurethane surfactant

(G)Organomodified silanic hydrogen fluid P-08-0244 02/20/08 05/19/08 CBI

(S)Polyurethane silicone surfactant

(G)Modified silicone polyether copolymer P-08-0245 02/20/08 05/19/08 Firmenich Inc

(S)Aroma for use in fragrance mixtures, which in turn are used in perfumes, soaps, cleaners, etc;

(S)Extractives and their physically modified derivatives. *Theobroma grandiflorum* . Oil *Theobroma grandiflorum* P-08-0246 02/20/08 05/19/08 Cognis Corporation

(S)Synthetic lubricant basestock

(S)Fatty acids, C 8-10 , mixed tetraesters with heptanoic acid, pentaerythritol, 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoic acid and valeric acid P-08-0247 02/20/08 05/19/08 The Dow Chemical Company

(S)Polymer intermediate for polyurethane foam

(G)Polymer of fatty acids methyl esters hydroformylation products, hydrogenated, with alkylene oxides P-08-0248 02/20/08 05/19/08 The Dow Chemical Company

(S)Polymer intermediate for polyurethane foam

(G)Polymer of fatty acids methyl esters hydroformylation products, hydrogenated, with alkylene oxides P-08-0249 02/20/08 05/19/08 CBI

(G)Pigment additive for industrial coatings and ink manufacture and for plastics compounding

(G)Naphthalenesulfonic acid, [(chloro-methyl-sulfophenyl)diazenyl]-hydroxy-metal salt P-08-0250 02/21/08 05/20/08 Huntsman Corporation

(S)Curing agent in an adhesive

(S)Poly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl), .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, polymer with ammonia P-08-0251 02/21/08 05/20/08 Givaudan Fragrances Corporation

(G)Highly dispersive use. (S)2 *H* -2,4A-methanonaphthalene-8-ethanol, 1,3,4,5,6,7-hexahydro-beta 2 *H* -2, 4A-methanonaphthalene-8-ethanol, 1,3,4,5,6,7,8a-hexahydro-.beta.,1,1,5,5-pentamethyl- P-08-0252 02/22/08 05/21/08 Cytec Industries Inc.

(G)Coatings and inks

(G)Alkanoic acid ester, polymer with substituted alcohol and epoxy resin P-08-0253 02/22/08 05/21/08 Cytec Industries Inc.

(S)Binder for industrial coatings

(G)Unsaturated polyester resin P-08-0254 02/22/08 05/21/08 CBI

(G)Pigment additive for industrial coatings and ink manufacture and for plastics compounding

(G)Naphthalenesulfonic acid, [(chloro-methyl-sulfonylphenyl)diazenyl]-hydroxy-metal salt P-08-0255 02/25/08 05/24/08 CBI

(G)Open non-dispersive (sealant)

(G)Aqueous polyurethane dispersion P-08-0256 02/26/08 05/25/08 CBI

(G)Adhesive

(S)Fatty acids, C 16-8 and C 18 -unsaturated, me esters, epoxidized, polymers with ethylene glycol P-08-0257 02/27/08 05/26/08 CBI

(G)Polyurethane foam component

(G)Isocyanate quasiprepolymer P-08-0258 02/27/08 05/26/08 CBI

(G)Polyurethane foam component

(G)Isocyanate quasiprepolymer P-08-0259 02/27/08 05/26/08 Ciba Corporation

(S)Pigment for thermoplastic resins

(G)B) 2,5-dihydro-3,6-bis[4-(alkylthio) aryl] - substituted pyrroledione P-08-0260 02/29/08 05/28/08 CBI

(G)Additive for colorants

(G)Diketopyrrolopyrrole sulto derivates P-08-0261 02/12/08 05/11/08 Innospec Fuel Specialties LLC

(G)Destructive use. Dispersant/detergent additive for fuel PMN chemical is destroyed when fuel is burned

(G)Alkylamine alkoxylate P-08-0262 02/29/08 05/28/08 CBI

(S)Laminating adhesive

(G)Polyester polyurethane P-08-0263 02/29/08 05/28/08 CBI

(G)Raw material used to manufacture surfactant blend

(S)Ethanol, 2,2′-[[3-[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]propyl]imino]bis-, *N* -(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) derivs P-08-0264 02/29/08 05/28/08 CBI

(G)Film and coating component

(G)Polyester In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TMEs received: **II. 2 Test Marketing Exemption Notices Received From: 2/01/08 to 2/29/08** Case No. Received Date Projected Notice End Date Manufacturer/Importer Use Chemical T-08-0007 02/22/08 04/06/08 Cytec Industries Inc.

(G)Coatings and inks

(G)Alkanoic acid ester, polymer with substituted alcohol and epoxy resin T-08-0008 02/22/08 04/06/08 Cytec Industries Inc.

(S)Binder for industrial coatings

(G)Unsaturated polyester resin In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received: **III. 34 Notices of Commencement From: 2/1/08 to 2/29/08** Case No. Received Date Commencement Notice End Date Chemical P-00-0097 02/14/08 02/01/08

(S)Carbonic acid, 2-hydroxypropyl 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexyl ester P-01-0698 02/13/08 10/01/01

(G)Alkene adduct, alkenoic acid ester, sulfurized P-06-0339 02/27/08 01/29/08

(G)Fatty acids, polymers with substituted acrylates, substituted alkanoic acid, substituted polyglycol and substituted carbomonocycle, peroxide initiated P-06-0402 02/13/08 02/01/08

(G)Modified polymeric succinimide dispersant P-06-0412 02/19/08 02/07/08

(S)D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, bu glycosides, phosphinicobis[oxy(2-hydroxy-3,1-propanediyl)] ethers, sodium salts P-06-0413 02/19/08 02/08/08

(S)D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, 2-ethylhexyl glycosides, phosphinicobis[oxy(2-hydroxy-3,1-propanediyl)] ethers, sodium salts P-06-0415 02/19/08 02/09/08

(S)D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, C 10-16 -alkyl glycosides, phosphinicobis[oxy(2-hydroxy-3,1-propanediyl)] ethers, sodium salts P-06-0416 02/19/08 02/11/08

(S)D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, C 10-16 -alkyl decyl octyl glycosides, phosphinicobis[oxy(2-hydroxy-3,1-propanediyl)] ethers, sodium salts P-06-0422 02/11/08 01/11/08

(G)Alkanoic acid, 2-[[(alkylthio)thioxomethyl]thio]-2-akyl- P-06-0432 02/11/08 01/11/08

(G)Alkanoic acid, 2-[[(alkylthio)thioxomethyl[thio]-2-methyl-, alkyl ester P-06-0509 02/19/08 01/21/08

(G)Substituted alkanol P-07-0002 02/08/08 01/11/08

(G)Fatty acids, C 16 -C 18 and C 18 unsaturated, esters with mixed diols and triols P-07-0109 02/06/08 01/15/08

(G)Iodoalkyl substituted catechol P-07-0111 02/08/08 02/04/08

(G)Alkylcatechol-substituted calixarene P-07-0114 02/06/08 01/25/08

(G)Arylated glycerol P-07-0308 02/01/08 01/16/08

(G)Glycol ether P-07-0428 02/14/08 01/30/08

(S)1,2-cyclohexanediamine, (1R,2R)-rel- P-07-0512 02/20/08 02/12/08

(G)Branched acid functional polyester P-07-0514 02/13/08 01/17/08

(S)Palm kernel meal. The dried seed residue from mechanical and solvent extraction of palm kernel from *elaeis guineensis* . The meal contains predominantly protein, oil and fiber. P-07-0572 02/01/08 01/07/08

(S)Hexanoic acid, 2-ethyl-, mixed diesters with benzoic acid triethylene glycol P-07-0600 02/14/08 02/01/08

(G)Substituted epoxy resin P-07-0610 02/13/08 02/06/08

(G)Bisurea compound P-07-0626 02/07/08 02/04/08

(G)Methyl trialkyl ammonium chloride, reaction products with silicic acid, lithium, magnesium and sodium salt P-07-0667 02/06/08 01/28/08

(G)Poly(ethylene oxide) P-07-0701 02/20/08 02/01/08

(G)Poly [oxy (alkyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-alkyl-.omega.-[3-(alkyloxyalkylsilyl)propoxy]- P-07-0705 02/06/08 01/29/08

(G)Polyurethane hydrid P-07-0723 02/27/08 02/04/08

(G)[Chlorooxoethyl[(diethylamino)phenylimino] carbomonocyclic] acetamide P-08-0001 02/04/08 01/28/08

(G)Esterified polyamic acid polymer P-08-0021 02/19/08 02/07/08

(S)Alcoholic beverages, rum, ext. P-08-0027 02/15/08 01/30/08

(G)Dimethyl siloxane polyglycol P-08-0028 02/22/08 02/20/08

(G)Dimethyl siloxane polyethylene glycol P-08-0037 02/08/08 01/29/08

(G)Isocyanate functional polyester polyether urethane polymer P-08-0064 02/27/08 02/08/08

(G)Rosin modified phenolic resin P-98-1215 02/27/08 02/04/08

(S)Ethanethioic acid, s-[1-[2-(acetyloxy)ethyl]butyl]ester List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices. Dated: April 16, 2008. Todd S. Holderman, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. E8-8794 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0320; FRL-8361-9] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(PMN)or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from March 3, 2008 through March 21, 2008, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. DATES: Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0320, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0320. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is

(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0320. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

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

(202)554- 1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(G)Adhesive for bonding wood, metal and ceramics

(G)Polymer of isocyanic acid, polymethylene polyphenylene ester, with alkyl polyamine, .alpha.-hydro-.gamma.-hydroxypoly[(oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)) and methyloxirane P-08-0266 03/04/08 06/01/08 CBI

(G)Anti-corrosive additive

(G)Guanidine, *N,N* ′′′-alkanediylbis[ *N* ′-cyano-, polymer with alkanediamine, phosphate P-08-0267 03/04/08 06/01/08 CBI

(G)Anti-static agent for thermoplastic resin

(G)Modified polyolefin, aminoalkanoic acid and polyether copolymer. P-08-0268 03/05/08 06/02/08 Dow Automotive

(S)Automotive glass and body primer

(G)Silicone modified urethane adduct P-08-0269 03/06/08 06/03/08 CBI

(G)Polyester used in inks

(G)Polyester acrylate P-08-0270 03/07/08 06/04/08 CBI

(G)Solder resist - open, non-dispersive use; printed circuit ink containing the pmn material is ready to use with no further additions required

(G)Glycidyl methacrylate modified carboxylated epoxy cresol novolac acrylate P-08-0271 03/10/08 06/07/08 The Shepherd Chemical Company

(G)Automotive additive

(S)Molybdenum, borate neodecanoate oxo complexes P-08-0272 03/10/08 06/07/08 Firmenich Inc.

(S)Aroma for use in fragrance mixtures, which in turn are used in perfumes, soaps, cleansers, etc;

(S)Extractives and their physically modified derivatives, *passiflora edulis* Oil, passion flower, *passiflora edulis* P-08-0273 03/10/08 06/07/08 CBI

(G)Polymer additive

(G)Alkyl silyl phosphonate P-08-0274 03/06/08 06/03/08 CBI

(S)Aqueous dispersion of polymer for leather finishing

(G)Alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkanediol, alkanediamine, alkanediol, hydroxy-(hydroxyalkyl)-alkyl-, trialkylamine, carbocycle-isocyanato-(isocyanatoalkyl)-trialkyl-, trialkylcyclohexane and alkylimino alcohol, salt P-08-0275 03/10/08 06/07/08 Alconix USA, Inc.

(S)A component of infrared absorption material

(S)Cesium tungsten oxide P-08-0276 03/06/08 06/03/08 CBI

(S)Colorant for cellulosic paper

(G)Substituted-carbopolycyclic-[[heterocycle)-heterocycle-diyl]diimino]bis[substituted-[[sulfocarbocycle]azo]carbocycle]azo]-, sodium salt P-08-0277 03/12/08 06/09/08 CBI

(G)Electrical sealant or putting material

(G)Naphthalene modified epoxy resin P-08-0278 03/13/08 06/10/08 AOC L.L.C.

(S)Polyester component for gel coat for fiberglass reinforced plastic parts

(S)1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, polymer with 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol, 2-ethyl-1-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol, 2,5-furandione, hexanedioic acid and 1,2-propanediol, 2-ethylhexyl ester P-08-0279 03/13/08 06/10/08 CBI

(G)Polymers for coatings

(G)Fatty acids, dimers, polymers with alkane diacid, aliphatic isocyanate, aromatic diacid, alkanediol, lactone and alkanetriol P-08-0280 03/13/08 06/10/08 CBI

(G)Polymers for coatings

(G)Fatty acids, dimers, polymers with alkane diacid, aliphatic isocyanate, aromatic diacid, alkanediol, lactone and alkanetriol P-08-0281 03/13/08 06/10/08 CBI

(G)Cathode in batteries

(G)Metal oxide P-08-0282 03/13/08 06/10/08 CBI

(G)Intermediate

(G)Cyanoalkane P-08-0283 03/13/08 06/10/08 Cognis Corporation

(G)Laundry detergent additive

(S)Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with 1,2,3-propanetriol homopolymer P-08-0284 03/14/08 06/11/08 Momentive performance

(G)Coatings and finishes

(G)Amino functional silicone polymer P-08-0285 03/14/08 06/11/08 Firmenich Inc.

(S)Aroma for use in fragrance mixtures, which in turn are used in perfumes, soaps, cleansers, etc;

(S)Extractives and their physically modified derivatives, *prunus persica* Oil, peach P-08-0286 03/13/08 06/10/08 CBI

(S)Curing agent for epoxy resin in protective coatings

(G)P-08-0287 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(G)Polymer solution designed to facilitate the patterning of other features for the manufacturing of integrated circuits

(G)Hydrocarbylpolsilicate P-08-0288 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Binder for wood coatings

(G)Polyester polycarbonate polyurethane modified with polymer of acrylic anf vinyl esters P-08-0289 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Curing agent for epoxy resin in protective coatings

(G)Alkylene, *N* 1 ′-(2-aminoethyl)- *N* ,-benzyl derivates P-08-0290 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Curing agent for epoxy resin in protective coatings

(G)Alkylene diamine, *N* 1 , *N* 1 ′-1,2-ethanediylbis-, *N* -benzyl derivates P-08-0291 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Curing agent for epoxy resin in protective coatings

(G)Alkylene diamine, *N* -(3-aminopropyl)- *N* -[2-[(3-aminopropyl)amino]ethyl]-, *N* -benzyl derivs P-08-0292 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Lube additive intermediate

(S)1-propanamine, *N* -(1-methylethyl)-, 3-(C 12-15 -alkloxy) derivates P-08-0293 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)Curing agent for epoxy resin in coatings, adhesives, encapsulants, concrete repair materials

(G)2-propenenitrile, reaction products with alkenediamine, hydrogenated, *N* -(2-hydroxypropyl) derivates P-08-0294 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(G)Chemical intermediate

(G)Hydroxysubstitutedalkanoic acid, 2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-propenyl-1-yl)oxy]ethyl ester P-08-0295 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(S)As ingredient of tomer

(G)Sulfonylcalixarene P-08-0296 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(G)Specialty additive

(G)Salt of a derivative of a sulfonated petroleum distillate P-08-0297 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(G)Open, non-dispersive (resin)

(G)Phosphorous acid ester P-08-0298 03/17/08 06/14/08 CBI

(G)Open non dispersive (adhesive)

(G)Polyurethane P-08-0299 03/18/08 06/15/08 Cabb North America Inc.

(S)Anti foam agent in cooling lubricants for chip-foaming metallworking; levelling agent in floor polishing products; anti foam agent in dishwashing detergents (dishwashers for commercials use only)

(S)Propanol, 1(or 2)-(methyl-2-[(1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl)oxy]ethoxy]- P-08-0300 03/18/08 06/15/08 Colgate-Palmolive Co.

(G)Laundry product additive

(G)Amidoamine salt P-08-0301 03/18/08 06/15/08 CBI

(G)Industrial liquid coatings

(G)Polymer fatty acids, aliphatic diols, aliphatic polyols, and aromatic acids P-08-0302 03/18/08 06/15/08 CBI

(G)Industrial coating

(G)Amino modified polyetheracrylate P-08-0303 03/18/08 06/15/08 Firmenich, Inc.

(S)Aroma for use in fragrance mixtures, which in turn are used in perfumes, soaps, cleanser, etc;

(S)Extractives and their physically modified derivatives, *siparuna guianensis* Oil, *siparuna guianensis* P-08-0304 03/19/08 06/16/08 CBI

(S)Lightfastness enhancer for dyed polyester fiber

(G)Substituted carbocycle, [( *N* -carbocycleamino)-heterocycle-yl]-bis- P-08-0305 03/20/08 06/17/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Compound of oxalkylated amine with fatty acid adduct P-08-0306 03/20/08 06/17/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Polyether urethane block compolymer P-08-0307 03/20/08 06/17/08 CBI

(G)Additive, open, non-dispersive use

(G)Fatty acid condensate P-08-0308 03/20/08 06/17/08 E. I. Dupont De Nemours

(S)Industrial intermediate

(G)Heteromonocycle carboxylic acid, bromo-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-dihydro-, ethyl ester P-08-0309 03/20/08 06/17/08 E. I. Dupont De Nemours

(S)Industrial intermediate

(G)Heteromonocycle carboxylic acid, bromo-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-, ethyl ester P-08-0310 03/20/08 06/17/08 E. I. Dupont De Nemours

(S)Industrial intermediate

(G)Heteromonocycle carboxylic acid, (3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-oxo-, ethyl ester P-08-0311 03/20/08 06/17/08 E. I. Dupont De Nemours

(S)Industrial intermediate

(G)Heteromonocycle carboxylic acid, (3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-dihydro-[(phenylsulfonyl)oxy]-, ethyl ester P-08-0312 03/20/08 06/17/08 Firmenich Inc.

(S)Aroma for use in fragrance mixtures, which in turn are used in perfumes, soaps, cleansers, etc;

(S)Ethanol soluble components obtained from extraction of hyraceum (sticky mass of dung and urine) from *procavia carpensis* Exretions, hyraceum, ext. P-08-0313 03/18/08 06/15/08 Momentive performance materials

(G)Wetting agent

(G)Alkylene silosanes and silicones reaction products with siloxanes and silicones P-08-0314 03/20/08 06/17/08 CBI

(G)Additive of ink

(G)Acrylic ester copolymer P-08-0315 03/21/08 06/18/08 CBI

(G)Additive for plastics

(G)Hexanedioic acid, polymer with diol and a monohydric alcohol In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received: **II. 16 Notices of Commencement From: 3/1/08 to 3/21/08** Case No. Received Date Commencement Notice End Date Chemical P-05-0459 03/05/08 02/19/08

(S)Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with 1,3-diisocyanatomethylbenzene and oxirane, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate- and 2-phenoxyethanol-blocked P-06-323 08/15/06 08/21/06

(G)cycloalkyl methyl ester P-07-0238 03/05/08 02/19/08

(G)Polyester acrylate P-07-0281 03/12/08 02/29/08

(G)Corn distillers condensed solubles P-07-0294 03/03/08 02/14/08

(S)Benzene, (1-methylethenyl)-, polymer with 1,3-butadiene, hydrogenated P-07-0311 03/13/08 02/26/08

(G)Polyester acrylate P-07-0557 03/13/08 02/28/08

(G)Urethane acrylate P-07-0588 03/03/08 02/25/08

(G)Alkyl nitrile P-07-0673 03/17/08 03/07/08

(S)2(3 *H* )-furanone,5-(6-heptenyl)dihydro- P-07-0686 03/11/08 02/29/08

(G)Polyetheramine P-07-0697 03/12/08 03/04/08

(G)Alkanedioc acid, polymer with isocyanate, alkyl diols, and substituted alkenoate, alkylamine-blocked, compounds with substituted alkanol P-07-0700 03/03/08 02/18/08

(G)Polyester resin P-08-0061 03/04/08 02/19/08

(G)Alcohol, reaction products with alkylene oxide, alkenyl glycidyl ether sulfate P-08-0074 03/10/08 02/16/08

(G)Aliphatic polyisocyanate, C 16 -alcohol and polyalkylene glycol-blocked P-08-0078 03/17/08 03/10/08

(G)Plant oil P-91-0862 03/13/08 10/15/91

(G)Capped polyurea List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices. Dated: April 16, 2008. Todd S. Holderman, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. E8-8796 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8556-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0048] Draft Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer-review meeting to review the external review draft document titled, “Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (NCEA-S-2764). EPA previously announced the 60-day public comment period (ending April 28, 2008) for the draft document in the **Federal Register** on March 4, 2008 (73 FR 11408). EPA will consider public comments and recommendations from the expert panel meeting as EPA finalizes the draft document. The public comment period and the external peer-review meeting are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward public comments submitted in accordance with **Federal Register** (73 FR 11408) to Versar, Inc., for consideration by the external peer-review panel prior to the meeting. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. Versar, Inc., invites the public to register to attend this meeting as observers. In addition, Versar, Inc., invites the public to give brief oral comments at the meeting regarding the draft document under review. The draft document and EPA's peer-review charge are available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's

(NCEA)home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* When finalizing the draft document, EPA intends to consider Versar's report of the comments and recommendations from the external peer-review meeting and any public comments that EPA receives in accordance with 73 FR 11408, March 4, 2008. Public comments that were submitted during the 60-day public comment period ending April 28, 2008 may be observed at *http://www.regulations.gov* under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0048. DATES: The peer-review panel meeting will begin on May 22, 2008, at 9 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. Register by May 16, 2008, if you wish to provide brief oral comments at the meeting. ADDRESSES: The peer-review meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott Crystal City, 2899 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Versar, Inc., is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer-review meeting. To attend the meeting, register by May 16, 2008, via the Internet at *http://epa.versar.com/2hexanone/.* The draft “Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's

(NCEA)home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* A limited number of paper copies are available from the Information Management Staff, NCEA; telephone: 703-347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the document title. Copies are not available from Versar, Inc. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the peer review meeting, contact Stephanie Sarraino, Versar, Inc.; telephone: 703-750-3000 ext. 316; e-mail: *ssarraino@versar.com.* If you have questions about the document, contact Amanda S. Persad, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment (B-243-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711; telephone: 919-541-9781; facsimile: 919-541-1818; e-mail: *persad.amanda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database (available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/iris* ) contains qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than 500 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose- response evaluation) of a risk assessment process. When supported by available data, the database provides oral reference doses

(RfDs)and inhalation reference concentrations

(RfCs)for chronic health effects, and oral slope factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined with specific exposure information, government and private entities can use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public health. II. Meeting Information Members of the public may attend the meeting as observers, and there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. Please let Versar, Inc. know if you wish to make comments during the meeting by registering on the Web site at *http://epa.versar.com/2hexanone/* and indicating your intent to make oral comments. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Dated: April 15, 2008. Peter W. Preuss, Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-8797 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0303; FRL-8361-2] Fenamiphos; Notice of Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of a request by a registrant to voluntarily cancel its registrations for all products containing the pesticide fenamiphos. This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the registrant Bayer CropScience to cancel the remaining fenamiphos product registrations. The request would terminate the last fenamiphos products registered for use in the United States. The last remaining fenamiphos products registered under FIFRA Section 3 were cancelled on May 31, 2007 as stipulated in a **Federal Register** notice issued on December 10, 2003 (FRL-7332-5). However, several FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations (for nematode and banana root borer control) have not gone through the voluntary cancellation process. Bayer CropScience, the registrant for all of the active FIFRA 24(c) product registrations, has requested cancellation of all fenamiphos Special Local Needs registrations associated with the previously cancelled Section 3 fenamiphos products. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws their request within this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order. DATES: Comments must be received on or May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments and your withdrawal request, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0303, 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. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0303. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 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 hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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: Eric Miederhoff, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)347-8028; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *miederhoff.eric@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background on the Receipt of Request to Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the registrant, Bayer CropScience, to cancel the remaining fenamiphos product registrations. Fenamiphos is an organophosphate insecticide and nematicide which was used primarily to control nematodes and thrips on various agricultural crops (i.e., citrus, grapes, peanuts, pineapples, tobacco, etc.) and non-agricultural (i.e., turf and ornamentals) sites. In a letter dated March 24, 2008, Bayer CropScience requested that EPA cancel the remaining pesticide product registrations for fenamiphos (identified in Table 1 of this notice). The request would terminate the last remaining fenamiphos products registered for use in the United States. The last remaining fenaimphos products registered under FIFRA Section 3 were cancelled on May 31, 2007 in accordance with a **Federal Register** notice issued on December 10, 2003 (68 FR-68901)(FRL-7332-5). However, several FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations (for nematode and banana root borer control) have not gone through the voluntary cancellation process. Bayer CropScience, the registrant for all of the active FIFRA 24(c) product registrations, has requested cancellation of all fenamiphos Special Local Needs registrations associated with the previously cancelled Section 3 fenamiphos products. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice announces receipt by the EPA of a request from Bayer CropScience to cancel all fenamiphos pesticide product registrations registered under section 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. The registrant making the request is identified in Table 2 of this unit. Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless: 1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or 2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. The fenamiphos registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed request. Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued canceling the affected registrations. **Table 1.—Registrations with Pending Requests for Cancellation** Registration No. Product Name Chemical Name PR 97-0002 Nemacur 15% Granular Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos HI 04-0002 Nemacur 15% Granular Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos NM 90-0001 Nemacur 15% Granular Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos PR 97-0001 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos PR 97-0005 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos WA 76-0034 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos FL 84-0019 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos HI 04-0001 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos OR 04-0021 Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide Fenamiphos Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 30-day period. Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. **Table 2.—Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation** EPA Company No. Company Name and Address 264 Bayer CropScience 2 T.W. Alexander Drive P.O. Box 12014 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the **Federal Register** . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request. V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before [ *insert date 30 days after date of publication in the* **Federal Register** ]. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. If this request for voluntary cancellation is granted, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to use the affected FIFRA 24(c) labels to apply existing stocks of the previously-cancelled parent Section 3 products, Nemacur 15% Granular Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide and Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide (EPA Reg. Nos. 264-726 and 264-731, respectively), provided such use is consistant with the 24(c) labels, until such existing stocks are exhausted. The registrant will not be permitted to sell or distribute the previously-cancelled parent Section 3 products, Nemacur 15% Granular Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide and Nemacur 3 Emulsifiable Systemic Insecticide-Nematicide (EPA Reg. Nos. 264-726 and 264-731, respectively), but existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users may be distributed and sold until May 31, 2008 and used legally until they are exhausted, in accordance with FRL-7332-5. If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation order in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: April 10, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division. [FR Doc. E8-8568 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0121; FRL-8360-3] Formaldehyde/Paraformaldehyde Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability and Risk Reduction Options AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk assessments, and related documents for the pesticide formaldehyde/paraformaldehyde, and opens a public comment period on these documents (Phase 3 of 4-Phase Process). The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0121, 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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0121. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 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 hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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: ShaRon Carlisle, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-6427; fax number:

(703)308-6467; e-mail address: *carlisle.sharon @epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(RED)for HHT through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193, 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. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0193. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although, listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 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 hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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: Lance Wormell, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)603-0523; fax number:

(703)308-8467; e-mail address: *wormell.lance@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(HCHO)which is released from HHT under proper conditions. EPA developed the risk assessments and risk characterization for HHT through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Products containing HHT are registered to preserve metalworking cutting fluids during use and for in-can preservation of adhesives; chain lubricants; aqueous mineral slurries; paints; stains; coatings; surfactant/detergent solutions and emulsions; chemical and clinical reagents; inks and dyes; fuel and oil in storage; indoor construction compounds such as caulks, spackling, grout, adhesives, foams, etc.; and drilling muds, workover fluids, and completion fluids. EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for HHT. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as inhalation toxicity and worker exposure data, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide. Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for HHT. Risks of concern associated with the use of HHT are: HCHO residential handler (inhalation) and post-application/bystander (inhalation), HCHO occupational handler (inhalation), and HHT occupational handler (dermal). In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to HHT, compared to the general population. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For HHT, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its few complex issues. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for HHT. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 19, 2008. Frank Sanders, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-8730 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0196; FRL-8360-6] Triforine Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for the pesticide triforine, and opens a public comment period on this document. The Agency's risk assessments and other related documents also are available in the Triforine Docket. Triforine is a systemic fungicide registered for use on ornamentals, mainly in residential areas, including roses, trees, herbaceous plants, woody shrubs and vines for control of black spot, rust, and powdery mildew. EPA has reviewed triforine through the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0196, 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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0196. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. 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. Although, listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 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 hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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: Cathryn O'Connell, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0136; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *oconnell.cathryn* *@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA has completed a RED for the pesticide, triforine under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Triforine is a systemic fungicide registered for use on ornamentals, mainly in residential areas, including roses, trees, herbaceous plants, woody shrubs and vines for control of black spot, rust, and powdery mildew. As a result of the risk assessments label language is required that specifies a maximum number of yearly applications and language that will advise users on how to reduce the opportunity for ecological exposure. EPA has determined that the data base to support reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing triforine are eligible for reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated in the manner described in the RED. Upon submission of any required product specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address concerns identified in the RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products containing triforine. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, triforine was reviewed through the modified 4-Phase process. Through this process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory decisions for triforine. The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is issuing the triforine RED for public comment. This comment period is intended to provide an additional opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency Docket for triforine. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the **Federal Register** . In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the triforine RED will be implemented as it is now presented. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: April 9, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-8567 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Covered Bond Policy Statement AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Interim final statement of policy. SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC) is publishing for comment an interim final policy statement (“Policy Statement”) on the treatment of covered bonds in a conservatorship or receivership. The Policy Statement provides guidance on the availability of expedited access to collateral pledged for certain covered bonds in a receivership or a conservatorship, after the FDIC decides whether to terminate or continue the transaction. The Policy Statement provides guidance to facilitate the prudent and incremental development of the U.S. covered bond market while the FDIC, and other regulators, evaluate the benefits and risks of these products in the U.S. mortgage market. The Policy Statement is being published as “interim final” in order to provide immediate guidance, but with a view to possible later amendment in response to comments received. DATES: Effective April 23, 2008. Comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http:// www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.* Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web Site. • *E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov.* Include “Covered Bond Policy” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Instructions:* All comments received will be posted generally without change to *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html* , including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected at the FDIC Public Information Center, Room E-1022, 3502 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard T. Aboussie, Associate General Counsel, Legal Division

(703)562-2452; Michael H. Krimminger, Special Advisor for Policy

(202)898-8950. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The FDIC has received questions from interested parties about how covered bond transactions will be treated in a conservatorship or receivership of an insured depository institution (“IDI”). Currently, there are no statutory or regulatory prohibitions on the issuance of covered bonds by U.S. banks. Interested parties assert that if the FDIC were to issue a policy statement providing guidance on the availability of expedited access to collateral pledged for certain covered bonds in a conservatorship or a receivership, it would reduce market uncertainty and the additional costs of U.S. covered bond transactions. As discussed below, these costs are created by the additional liquidity needed to insure continued payment on outstanding bonds if the FDIC as conservator or receiver fails to make payment or provide access to the pledged collateral after the FDIC decides to terminate the covered bond transaction. The Policy Statement does not impose any new obligations on the FDIC, as conservator or receiver, but does define the circumstances and the specific covered bond transactions for which the FDIC will grant consent to access pledged covered bond collateral. Covered bonds are general obligation bonds of the issuing bank secured by a pledge of loans that remain on the bank's balance sheet. Covered bonds originated in Europe, where they are subject to extensive statutory and supervisory regulation designed to protect the interests of covered bond investors from the risks of insolvency of the issuing bank. By contrast, covered bonds are a relatively new innovation in the U.S. with only two issuers to date: Bank of America, N.A. and Washington Mutual. The initial U.S. covered bonds were issued in September 2006. In the covered bond transactions initiated in the U.S. to date, an IDI sells mortgage bonds, secured by mortgages, to a trust or similar entity (“special purpose vehicle” or “SPV”). The pledged mortgages remain on the IDI's balance sheet, securing the IDI's obligation to make payments on the debt, and the SPV sells covered bonds, secured by the mortgage bonds, to investors. In the event of a default by the IDI, the mortgage bond trustee takes possession of the pledged mortgages and continues to make payments to the SPV to service the covered bonds. Proponents argue that covered bonds provide new and additional sources of liquidity and diversity to an institution's funding base. FDIC staff agrees that covered bonds may be a useful liquidity tool for IDIs as part of an overall prudent liquidity management framework and within the parameters set forth in the Policy Statement. While covered bonds, like other secured liabilities, could increase the costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund in a receivership, these potential costs must be balanced with diversification of sources of liquidity and the benefits that accrue from additional on-balance sheet alternatives to securitization for financing mortgage lending. The Policy Statement seeks to balance these considerations by clarifying the circumstances and the specific covered bond transactions for which the FDIC will grant consent to access pledged covered bond collateral. Staff believes that the prudential limitations identified in the Policy Statement permit the incremental development of the covered bond market, while allowing the FDIC, and other regulators, the opportunity to evaluate these transactions within the U.S. mortgage market. In fulfillment of its responsibilities as deposit insurer and receiver for failed IDIs, the FDIC will continue to review the development of the covered bond marketplace in the U.S. and abroad to gain further insights into the appropriate role of covered bonds in IDI funding and the U.S. mortgage market, and their potential consequences for the Deposit Insurance Fund. (For ease of reference, throughout this Policy Statement when we refer to “covered bond obligation,” we are referencing the part of the covered bond transaction comprising the IDI's debt obligation, whether to the SPV, mortgage bond trustee, or other parties; and “covered bond obligee” is the entity to which the IDI is indebted.) Under Federal Deposit Insurance Act, when the FDIC is appointed conservator or receiver of an IDI, contracting parties cannot terminate agreements with the IDI because of the insolvency itself or the appointment of the conservator or receiver. In addition, contracting parties must obtain the FDIC's consent during the forty-five day period after appointment of FDIC as conservator, or during the ninety day period after appointment of FDIC as receiver before, among other things, terminating any contract or liquidating any collateral pledged for a secured transaction. During this period, the FDIC must still comply with otherwise enforceable provisions of the contract. The FDIC also may terminate or repudiate any agreement of the IDI within a reasonable time after the FDIC's appointment as conservator or receiver if the conservator or receiver determines that the agreement is burdensome and that the repudiation will promote the orderly administration of the IDI's affairs. 1 The questions to the FDIC for guidance have focused principally on the conditions under which the FDIC would grant consent to obtain collateral for a covered bond transaction before the expiration of the forty-five day period after appointment of a conservator or the ninety day period after appointment of a receiver. 1 *See* 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(e)(3) and (13). These provisions do not apply in the manner stated to “qualified financial contracts” as defined in Section 11(e) of the FDI Act. *See* 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(e)(8). IDIs interested in issuing covered bonds have expressed concern that the requirement to seek the FDIC's consent before exercising on the collateral after a breach could interrupt payments to the covered bond obligee for as long as 90 days. IDIs can provide for additional liquidity or other hedges to accommodate this potential risk to the continuity of covered bond payments, but at an additional cost to the transaction. Interested parties have requested that the FDIC provide clarification about how FDIC would apply the consent requirement with respect to covered bonds. Accordingly, the FDIC has determined to issue this Policy Statement in order to provide covered bond issuers with guidance on how the FDIC will treat covered bonds in a conservatorship or receivership. II. Interim Final Policy For the purposes of this Policy Statement, a “covered bond” is defined as a recourse debt obligation of an insured depository institution with a term greater than one year and no more than ten years, that is secured directly or indirectly by a pool of mortgage loans or, not exceeding ten percent of the collateral, by AAA-rated mortgage bonds. The term “covered bond obligee” is the entity to which the IDI is indebted. To provide guidance to potential covered bond issuers and investors, while allowing the FDIC to evaluate the potential benefits and risks that covered bond transactions may pose to the Deposit Insurance Fund in the U.S. mortgage market, the application of the policy statement is limited to covered bonds that meet the following standards. This Policy Statement only applies to covered bond issuances made with the consent of the IDI's primary federal regulator in which the IDI's total covered bond obligations at such issuance comprise no more than 4% of an IDI's total liabilities. The FDIC is concerned that unrestricted growth while the FDIC is evaluating the potential benefits and risks of covered bonds could excessively increase the proportion of secured liabilities to unsecured liabilities on IDI balance sheets at the expense of the Deposit Insurance Fund. In a failure, secured liabilities on a financial institution's balance sheet are satisfied out of the pledged assets before any of the remaining value in those assets is made available to satisfy the claims of depositors (including the Deposit Insurance Fund as subrogee of the insured depositors) and general creditors. The larger the balance of secured liabilities on the balance sheet, the smaller the value of assets that are available to satisfy depositors and general creditors, and consequently the greater the potential loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund. To address these concerns, the Policy Statement is limited to covered bonds that comprise no more than 4% of a financial institution's total liabilities after issuance. In order to limit the risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund, the Policy Statement limits its application to “eligible mortgages,” defined as covered bond issuances secured by perfected security interests under applicable state and federal law on performing mortgages on one-to-four family residential properties, underwritten at the fully indexed rate and relying on documented income. The Policy Statement provides that eligible mortgages shall be underwritten in accordance with existing supervisory guidance governing the underwriting of residential mortgages, including the Interagency Guidance on Non-Traditional Mortgage Products, October 5, 2006, and the Interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending, July 10, 2007, and such other guidance applicable at the time such covered bonds are issued by any IDI. The FDIC recognizes that some covered bond programs include mortgage-backed securities in limited quantities. Staff believes that allowing some limited inclusion of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities as collateral for covered bonds during this interim, evaluation period will support enhanced liquidity for mortgage finance without increasing the risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Therefore, covered bonds that include up to 10% of their collateral in AAA-rated mortgage securities backed solely by mortgage loans that are made in compliance with guidance referenced above will meet the standards set forth in the Policy Statement. Securities backed by tranches in other securities or assets (such as Collateralized Debt Obligations) would not be considered to be acceptable collateral. The Policy Statement provides that the consent of the FDIC, as conservator or receiver, is given to covered bond obligees to exercise their contractual rights over collateral for covered bond transactions conforming to the Policy Statement no sooner than ten

(10)business days after a monetary default on an IDI's obligation to the covered bond obligee, as defined below, or ten

(10)business days after the effective date of repudiation as provided in a written notice by the conservator or receiver. The FDIC anticipates that future developments in the marketplace may present interim final covered bond structures and structural elements that are not encompassed within this Policy Statement. FDIC invites comment on whether this Policy Statement should be limited to the currently defined structures or open to future innovations in how covered bond transactions may be structured in the U.S., and if so, how any future policy should be applied to such innovative elements. From an insurance perspective, the FDIC seeks comment on whether the issuances of covered bonds should increase an institution's insurance assessment rate or should be included in an institution's assessment base. If so, should such assessment rate increases or inclusion in assessment base only apply when an institution's covered bond liability exceeds 4% of its total liabilities. More generally, the FDIC seeks comment on whether an institution's percentage of secured liabilities to total liabilities should be factored into an institution's insurance assessment rate or whether the total secured liabilities should be included in the assessment base. Finally, FDIC also seeks comment on whether, as part of this Policy Statement, there should also be an overall cap for secured liabilities. III. Scope and Applicability This Policy Statement applies to the FDIC in its capacity as conservator or receiver of an insured depository institution. This Policy Statement only addresses the rights of the FDIC under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C). A previous policy statement entitled “Statement of Policy on Foreclosure Consent and Redemption Rights,” August 17, 1992, separately addresses consent under 12 U.S.C. 1825(b), and should be separately consulted. This Policy Statement does not authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing, the waiver of the prohibitions in 12 U.S.C. 1825(b)(2) against levy, attachment, garnishment, foreclosure or sale of property of the FDIC, nor does it authorize or shall it be construed as authorizing the attachment of any involuntary lien upon the property of the FDIC. The Policy Statement provides that it shall not be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise affecting the rights or powers of the FDIC to take any action or to exercise any power not specifically mentioned, including but not limited to any rights, powers or remedies of the FDIC regarding transfers taken in contemplation of the institution's insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution, or that is a fraudulent transfer under applicable law. Request for Public Comment The Board of Directors of the FDIC has adopted an interim final Covered Bond Policy Statement. The FDIC requests public comment on the interim final Covered Bond Policy Statement. The text of the Covered Bond Policy Statement follows: Covered Bond Policy Statement Background Insured depository institutions (“IDIs”) are showing increasing interest in issuing covered bonds. Although covered bond structures vary, in all covered bonds the IDI issues a debt obligation secured by a pledge of assets, typically mortgages. The debt obligation is either a covered bond sold directly to investors, or mortgage bonds which are sold to a trust or similar entity (“special purpose vehicle” or “SPV”) as collateral for the SPV to sell covered bonds to investors. In either case, the IDI's debt obligation is secured by a perfected first priority security interest in pledged mortgages, which remain on the IDI's balance sheet. Proponents argue that covered bonds provide new and additional sources of liquidity and diversity to an institution's funding base. Based upon the information available to date, the FDIC agrees that covered bonds may be a useful liquidity tool for IDIs as part of an overall prudent liquidity management framework and the parameters set forth in this policy statement. Because of the increasing interest IDIs have in issuing covered bonds, the FDIC has determined to issue this policy statement with respect to covered bonds.

(a)*Definitions.*

(1)For the purposes of this policy statement, a “covered bond” shall be defined as a recourse debt obligation of an IDI with a term greater than one year and no more than ten years, that is secured directly or indirectly by perfected security interests under applicable state and federal law on eligible mortgages, or, for no more than ten percent of the collateral for any covered bond issuance or series, AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities secured by eligible mortgages.

(2)The term “eligible mortgages” shall mean performing mortgages on one-to-four family residential properties, underwritten at the fully indexed rate and relying on documented income in accordance with existing supervisory guidance governing the underwriting of residential mortgages, including the Interagency Guidance on Non-Traditional Mortgage Products, October 5, 2006, and the Interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending, July 10, 2007, and such other guidance applicable at the time such covered bonds are issued by any IDI.

(3)The term “covered bond obligation,” shall be defined as the portion of the covered bond transaction that is the insured depository institution's debt obligation, whether to the SPV, mortgage bond trustee, or other parties.

(4)The term “covered bond obligee” is the entity to which the insured depository institution is indebted.

(5)The term “monetary default” shall mean the failure to pay when due (taking into account any period for cure of such failure or for forbearance provided under the instrument or in law) sums of money that are owed, without dispute, to the covered bond obligee under the terms of any *bona fide* instrument creating the obligation to pay.

(6)The term “total liabilities” shall mean, for banks that file quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports), line 21 “Total liabilities” (Schedule RC); and for thrifts that file quarterly Thrift Financial Reports (TFRs), line SC70 “Total liabilities” (Schedule SC).

(b)*Coverage.* This policy statement only applies to covered bond issuances made with the consent of the IDI's primary federal regulator in which the insured depository institution's total covered bond obligation at such issuance comprises no more than 4% of an insured depository institution's total liabilities, and only so long as the assets securing the covered bond obligation are eligible mortgages. Additionally, no more than ten percent of the collateral for any covered bond issuance or series may consist of AAA-rated mortgage securities backed solely by eligible mortgages that are considered to be acceptable collateral under the standards set forth in this policy statement.

(c)*Consent to certain actions.* The FDIC as conservator or receiver consents to a covered bond obligee's exercise of the rights and powers listed in 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C), and will not assert any rights to which it may be entitled pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C), after the expiration of the specified amount of time, and the occurrence of the following events:

(1)If at any time after appointment the conservator or receiver is in a monetary default to a covered bond obligee, as defined above, and remains in monetary default for ten

(10)business days after actual delivery of a written request to the FDIC pursuant to paragraph

(d)hereof to exercise contractual rights because of such monetary default, the FDIC hereby consents pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C) to the covered bond obligee's exercise of any such contractual rights, including liquidation of properly pledged collateral by commercially reasonable methods, provided no involvement of the receiver or conservator is required.

(2)If the FDIC as conservator or receiver of an insured depository institution provides a written notice of repudiation of a contract to a covered bond obligee, and the FDIC does not pay the damages pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e) by reason of such repudiation within ten

(10)business days after the effective date of the notice, the FDIC hereby consents pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C) for the covered bond obligee's exercise of any of its contractual rights, including liquidation of properly pledged collateral by commercially reasonable methods, provided no involvement of the receiver or conservator is required.

(d)*Consent.* Anyone requesting the FDIC's consent as conservator or receiver pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C) pursuant to this policy statement should provide to Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington DC 20429-0002, a statement of the basis upon which such request is made, and copies of all documentation supporting such request, including without limitation a copy of the applicable contract and of any applicable notices under the contract.

(e)*Limitations.* The consents set forth in this policy statement do not act to waive or relinquish any rights granted to the FDIC in any capacity, pursuant to any other applicable law or any agreement or contract. Nothing contained in this policy alters the claims priority of collateralized obligations. Nothing contained in this policy statement shall be construed as permitting the avoidance of any legally enforceable or perfected security interest in any of the assets of an insured depository institution, provided such interest is not taken in contemplation of the institution's insolvency, or with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the IDI or its creditors. Subject to the provisions of 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C), nothing contained in this policy statement shall be construed as permitting the conservator or receiver to fail to comply with otherwise enforceable provisions of a contract or preventing a covered bond obligee's exercise of any of its contractual rights, including liquidation of properly pledged collateral by commercially reasonable methods.

(f)*No waiver.* This policy statement does not authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the waiver of the prohibitions in 12 U.S.C. 1825(b)(2) against levy, attachment, garnishment, foreclosure, or sale of property of the FDIC, nor does it authorize nor shall it be construed as authorizing the attachment of any involuntary lien upon the property of the FDIC. Nor shall this policy statement be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise affecting the rights or powers of the FDIC to take any action or to exercise any power not specifically mentioned, including but not limited to any rights, powers or remedies of the FDIC regarding transfers taken in contemplation of the institution's insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution, or that is a fraudulent transfer under applicable law.

(g)*No assignment.* The right to consent under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C) may not be assigned or transferred to any purchaser of property from the FDIC, other than to a conservator or bridge bank.

(h)*Repeal.* This policy statement may be amended or repealed by the FDIC upon no less than 30 days' notice provided in the **Federal Register** , but any amendment or repeal shall not apply to any covered bonds issued in accordance with this policy statement before such amendment or repeal becomes effective, By order of the Board of Directors: Dated at Washington, DC this 15th day of April, 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8750 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants PHIL-AM Cargo Express, LLC, 2906 Keats Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611. *Officers:* Theodore G. Tanaleon, Member/Manager, (Qualifying Individual), Irma M. Tanaleon, Member/Manager. Apex Maritime Co.

(PDX)Inc., 11818 SE Mill Plain Blvd., Vancouver, WA 98684. *Officers:* Vicky Cheung, President, (Qualifying Individual), Michael Stephenson, Vice President. American Ocean Line, Inc., 148 The Knoll, Syosset, NY 11791. *Officer:* Harry Taurani, President, (Qualifying Individual). S.O.E. Lines, Inc., 177-25 Rockaway Blvd., Ste. 201, Jamaica, NY 11434. *Officers:* Po Ling Yu, President, (Qualifying Individual), Yat Lee Cheung, Secretary. Camden Shipping Corporation, 56 Georgetown Road, Bordentown, NJ 08505. *Officers:* James Madden, Sen. Vice President, (Qualifying Individual), Michelle Bunting, President. PATJAM Shipping Moving and Storage Inc., dba Patrick's Shipping Inc., 3477 NW 19th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33311. *Officers:* Patrick McNeil, President, (Qualifying Individual), Terrence Pennicooke, Vice President. Universal Shipping and Trade Corporation, 151 25th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. *Officers:* Leslyn Antoine-Patterson, Corp. Secretary, (Qualifying Individual), Shaker Lashucl, President. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants Salcedo Cargo Express, Inc., 1388 Jesup Avenue, Bronx, NY 10452. *Officer:* Charles Canaan, President, (Qualifying Individual). Transatlantic Arc LLC, 94-11 59th Avenue, Elmhurst, NY 11373. *Officers:* Mark W. Broers, Vice Operating Manager, (Qualifying Individual), Diana G. Petrof, Operating Manager. GFS Global Logistics, LLC, Six Concourse Parkway, Ste. 1750, Atlanta, GA 30328. *Officers:* David W. Higgs, Vice President Int'l., (Qualifying Individual), Dan Smith, CEO. United Logistics Corp., 3650 Mansell Road, Alpharetta, GA 30022. *Officer:* Jason Scott Ewing, Operations Manager, (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Precious Enterprises dba JB Cargo, 1559 East Amar Road, Ste. J, West Covina, CA 91792. Simis-Emista P. Baquiran, Sole Proprietor. Onward Shipping & Clearing Service Inc., 2305 Oak Lane, #2018, Grand Prairie, TX 75051. *Officers:* Julius O. Okunola, President, (Qualifying Individual), Folake Okunola, Vice President. LDC Import & Export Inc., 19 Yardley Ct., Glendale Heights, IL 60139. *Officer:* Mounir Zamzaoui, President, (Qualifying Individual). Cybamar USA, LLC, 24551 Warren Avenue, Dearborn Heights, MI 48127. *Officer:* Hassan Salhab, President, (Qualifying Individual). Transoceanic Shipping Company, Inc., Lakeway II, 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1330, Metairie, LA 70002. *Officer:* Thomas J. Griffin, President, (Qualifying Individual). Amobeige Shipping Corp., 934 Broadway, Bayonne, NJ 07002. *Officer:* Alice Smerda, President, (Qualifying Individual). Dated: April 18, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8807 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Reissuances Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. License No. Name/Address Date reissued 004299N CNC Shipping International Inc., 7774 NW., 71st Street Miami, FL 33166 March 9, 2008. 011170N Sage Freight System Inc. dba Sage Container Lines, 182-30 150th Road, #108 Jamaica, NY 11413 March 5, 2008. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E8-8808 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting Agency Holding The Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Time And Date: 12 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2008. Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. Status: Closed. Matters To Be Considered: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov* for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 18, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 08-1175 Filed 4-18-08; 4:07 pm]

Connectionstraces to 51

Traces to 51 documents