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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-04-23 · Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Minority Health · Notices

Notices. Notice of meeting

83,891 words·~381 min read·/register/2008/04/23/08-1182

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

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Minority Health. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS)is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Minority Health
(ACMH)will hold a meeting. This meeting is open to the public. Preregistration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should e-mail *acmh@osophs.dhhs.gov.* DATES: The meeting will be held on May 6, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Paradise Valley Hotel, 5401 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica A. Baltimore, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240-453-2882, Fax: 240-453-2883. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Public Law 105-392, the ACMH was established to provide advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health in improving the health of each racial and ethnic minority group and on the development of goals and specific program activities of the Office of Minority Health. Topics to be discussed during this meeting will include strategies to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities, as well as other related issues. Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person at least 14 business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should mail or fax their comments to the Office of Minority Health at least five business days prior to the meeting. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to ACMH committee members should submit their materials to Garth Graham, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACMH, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, prior to close of business April 28, 2008. Dated: April 8, 2008. Garth N. Graham, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health, Office of Minority Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. E8-8705 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-29-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)to request that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approve the proposed information collection project: “Feasibility of secure messaging for pediatric patients with chronic disease: Pilot implementation in pediatric respiratory medicine.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 15th, 2008 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at
(202)395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail at *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* (attention: AHRQ's desk officer). Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer,
(301)427-1477, or by e-mail at *doris.lefkowitz@ahrq.hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project “Feasibility of secure messaging for pediatric patients with chronic disease: Pilot implementation in pediatric respiratory medicine.” AHRQ proposes to evaluate how the implementation of a secure e-mail messaging (e-messaging) system between clinicians and adolescent patients affects:
(1)Time spent by providers communicating with patients,
(2)Emergency Department utilization for medication refills, and
(3)qualitative satisfaction with care of the patients. The study will be conducted in the Yale University School of Medicine Pediatric Respiratory Medicine Clinic Several studies have evaluated the use of e-mail between providers and patients and found that it is typically satisfactory to both, has not been abused by patients, and has not been used inappropriately for urgent items. Studies have not evaluated the use of e-mailing or secure messaging by children or adolescents with chronic diseases as well as their families. The setting of chronic disease provides a natural forum for discussion about the use of such technologies since these families may need more frequent contact with their care-providers, need more frequent medication refills, and may have close relationships with their providers that encourage a communication genre such as secure messaging. In particular, because many adolescents are comfortable with text messaging and e-mail, the investigators hypothesize that adolescent patients themselves may feel empowered to contact their providers using this medium. This potential shift to having adolescents communicate with the providers presents two main hypotheses of interest.
(1)Adolescents may be more prone to send a message that may be of an urgent nature because of the sense that messaging is “instant” as well as a possible feeling of more privacy. This issue presents the concern that adolescents in particular could send a secure message about information that is potentially urgent in nature such as a severe asthma exacerbation or suicidal ideation. Such messages will need immediate attention.
(2)Adolescents may be more apt to disclose questions about their care that they would not have otherwise brought up with the provider. By giving adolescents a medium where they feel comfortable communicating, clinicians may be able to better meet the medical and psychosocial needs of adolescents and their families. Method of Collection The project will include 300 patient/family participants and 138 provider participants. Data will be collected from
(1)E-messaging content, to understand what children, adolescents and their parents will send in secure messages to their provider;
(2)a survey, to determine the demographic characteristics of the patients and their family; and
(3)qualitative interviews with patients and their families and clinic staff, to assess their attitudes and satisfaction with e-messaging. Estimated Annual Respondent Burden Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours. Each of the 300 patient/family participants will complete a demographic survey and use the e-messaging system, sending an average of one e-message per month. Thirty of the patient/family participants will be randomly selected to participate in a qualitative interview. Each of the 138 provider participants will use the e-messaging system, responding to about twenty six e-messages per year, and keep a pre- and post-intervention log of patient/provider communications. Ten provider participants will be randomly selected to participate in a qualitative interview. The total burden for all participants is estimated to be 1,898 hours. Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden for the participants' time to participate in this study. The total cost burden for all participants is estimated to be $66,114. Exhibit 1. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Interview participants Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Hours per response Total burden hours Patient/Family Participants: Demographic Survey 300 1 10/60 50 E-messaging 300 12 15/60 900 Qualitative Interview 30 1 30/60 15 Provider Participants: E-messaging 138 26 15/60 900 Qualitative Interviews 10 1 30/60 5 Pre-intervention Provider Log 138 1 6/60 14 Post-intervention Provider Log 138 1 6/60 14 Total 438 na na 1,898 Exhibit 2.—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Interview participants Number of respondents Total burden hours Average hourly wage rate* Total cost burden Patient/Famly Participants: Demographic Survey 300 50 $26.20 $1,310 E-messaging 300 900 $26.20 $23,580 Qualitative Survey 30 15 $26.20 $393 Provider Participants: E-messaging 138 900 $43.78 $39,402 Qualitative Interviews 10 5 $43.78 $219 Pre-intervention Provider Log 138 13.8 $43.78 $605 Post-intervention Provider Log 138 13.8 $43.78 $605 Total 438 1,898 na $66,114 * For Patient/Family Participants: Based upon the mean of the average wages for all occupations, National Compensation Survey, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” * For Provider Participants: Based upon the mean of the average wages for physicians ($65.54/hr) and nurses ($43.85/hr) in the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania region, National Compensation Survey, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” For Pulmonary Fellows: Based upon internal Yale University School of Medicine data. Estimated Annual Costs to the Federal Government The total cost to the Federal Government for this project is $399,970 over a two year period. The average annual cost is $199,985. The following is a breakdown of the average annual costs: Direct Costs: Personnel $159,488.5 Consultancies 5,475 Data support 5,336.5 Indirect Costs: Indirect costs 29,685 Total $199,985 Request for Comments In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 10, 2008. Carolyn M. Clancy, Director. [FR Doc. E8-8445 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public Members AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. ACTION: Request for nominations for public members. SUMMARY: Section 931 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), 42 U.S.C. 299c, established a National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council). The Council is to advise the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)on matters related to activities of the Agency to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all Americans. Seven current members' terms will expire in November 2008. To fill these positions in accordance with the legislative mandate establishing the Council, we are seeking individuals who are distinguished:
(1)In the conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with respect to health care;
(2)in the fields of health care quality research or health care improvement;
(3)in the practice of medicine;
(4)in other health professions;
(5)in representing the private health care sector (including health plans, providers, and purchasers) or administrators of health care delivery systems;
(6)in the fields of health care economics, information systems, law, ethics, business, or public policy; and,
(7)in representing the interests of patients and consumers of health care. Individuals are particularly sought with experience and success in activities specified in the summary above. DATES: Nominations should be received on or before June 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Ms. Deborah Queenan, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 3238, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Nominations also may be faxed to
(301)427-1341. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Queenan, AHRQ, at
(301)427-1330. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 931 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c, provides that the Secretary shall appoint to the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality twenty-one appropriately qualified individuals. At least seventeen members shall be representatives of the public and at least one member shall be a specialist in the rural aspects of one or more of the professions or fields listed in the above summary. In addition, the Secretary designates, as ex officio members, representatives from other Federal agencies specified in the authorizing legislation, principally agencies that conduct or support health care research, as well as Federal officials the Secretary may consider appropriate. The Council meets in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, generally in Rockville, Maryland, approximately three times a year to provide broad guidance to the Secretary and AHRQ's Director on the direction of and programs undertaken by AHRQ. Seven individuals will be selected presently by the Secretary to serve on the Council beginning with the meeting in the spring of 2009. Members generally serve 3-year terms. Appointments are staggered to permit an orderly rotation of membership. Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Council. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations shall include:
(1)A copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; and
(2)a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. Selected candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning their financial interests, consultant positions and research grants and contracts, to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. The Department seeks a broad geographic representation and has special interest in assuring that women, minority groups, and the physically handicapped are adequately represented on advisory bodies, and therefore, particularly encourages nominations for appropriately qualified female, minority, and/or physically handicapped candidates. Dated: April 15, 2008. Carolyn M. Clancy, Director. [FR Doc. E8-8614 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self Sufficiency (ISIS)—Intervention Strategy Assessment Guide. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency
(ISIS)demonstration and evaluation. The ISIS project will test a range of promising strategies to promote employment, self-sufficiency, and reduce dependence on cash welfare. The ISIS project will evaluate multiple employment-focused strategies that build on previous approaches and are adapted to the current Federal, State, and local policy environment. The major goals of the project include increasing the empirical knowledge about the effectiveness of a variety of programs for low-income families to sustain employment and advance to positions that enable self-sufficiency, as well as producing useful findings for both policymakers and program administrators. This proposed information collection activity focuses on identifying promising strategies to be tested as part of the study. Through semi-structured discussions, respondents will be asked to comment on the most important strategies and interventions for potential evaluation. *Respondents:* Semi-structured discussions will be held with administrators or staff of State agencies, local agencies, and programs with responsibility for employment-related services or activities for welfare and other low-income families; researchers in the field of welfare policy, poverty, economic self-sufficiency, and low-wage labor markets; and policymakers at various levels of government. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total annual burden hours Intervention Strategy Assessment Guide 400 1 .5 200 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 200. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 14, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8624 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request *Title:* Generic Clearance to Conduct Pre-Testing of Surveys. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for a generic clearance that will allow OPRE to conduct a variety of data-gathering activities aimed at identifying questionnaire and procedural problems in survey administration. Over the next three years, OPRE anticipates undertaking a variety of new surveys as part of research projects in the fields of cash welfare, employment and self-sufficiency, Head Start, child care, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood, and child welfare, among others. In order to improve the development of its research and evaluation surveys, OPRE envisions using a variety of techniques including field tests, respondent debriefing questionnaires, cognitive interviews, and focus groups in order to identify questionnaire and procedural problems, suggest solutions, and measure the relative effectiveness of alternative survey solutions. Following standard OMB requirements, OPRE will submit a change request to OMB individually for every data collection activity undertaken under this generic clearance. OPRE will provide OMB with a copy of the individual instrument or questionnaire, as well as other materials describing the project and specific survey pre test. *Respondents:* The respondents will be identified at the time that each change request is submitted to OMB. Generally, they will be individuals who are representative of the target groups for the public assistance research or evaluation project in question. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total annual burden hours Survey Development Field Tests, Respondent Debriefing Questionnaires, Cognitive Interviews and Focus Groups 1,000 1 1 1,000 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,000. In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: April 14, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8625 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Exploration of Low-Income Couples' Decision-Making Processes. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Exploration of Low-Income Couples' Decision Making
(CDM)Processes study. This project will gather important information that will be useful for improving social services delivery approaches for working with individuals in couple relationships. The proposed collection will consist of a telephone survey and in-home observation of low-income couples. These data collection efforts will examine sources of conflict and assess decision-making processes among low-income couples—especially in relation to issues directly addressed by social service programs (e.g., employment, housing, etc.) *Respondents:* Low-income couples. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Annual number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Estimated annual burden hours Telephone Survey 90 1 .333 30 In-Home Observation 90 1 2.666 240 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 270. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 14, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8626 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Child Care and Development Fund Tribal Plan (Form ACF-118-A). *OMB No.:* 0970-0198. *Description:* The Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF)Tribal Plan serves as the agreement between the applicant (Indian Tribes, tribal consortia and tribal organizations) and the Federal government that describes how tribal applicants will operate CCDF Block Grant programs. The Tribal Plan provides assurances that the CCDF funds will be administered in conformance with legislative requirements, federal regulations at 45 CFR parts 98 and 99 and other applicable instructions or guidelines issued by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Tribes must submit a new CCDF Tribal Plan every two years in accordance with 45 CFR 98.17. *Respondents:* Tribal CCDF programs (259 total). Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours CCDF Tribal Plan 259 1 17.5 4,532.5 CCDF Tribal Plan Amendments 259 1 1.5 388.5 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,921. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 16, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance, Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8648 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0227] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device Labeling Regulations AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on medical device labeling regulations. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1772. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Medical Device Labeling Regulations—21 CFR Parts 800, 801, and 809 (OMB Control Number 0910-0485)—Extension Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements for the label or labeling of a medical device so that it is not misbranded and subject to a regulatory action. Certain provisions under section 502 of the act require manufacturers, importers, and distributors of medical devices to disclose information about themselves or the devices, on the labels or labeling for the devices. Section 502(b) of the act requires that for packaged devices, the label must bear the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor as well as an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents. Section 502(f) of the act requires that the labeling for a device must contain adequate directions for use. FDA may however, grant an exemption, if the agency determines that the adequate directions for use labeling requirements are not necessary for the particular case, as it relates to protection of the public health. FDA regulations under parts 800, 801, and 809 (21 CFR parts 800, 801, and 809) require disclosure of specific information by manufacturers, importers, and distributors of medical devices about themselves or the devices, on the label or labeling for the devices to health professionals and consumers. FDA issued these regulations under the authority of sections 201, 301, 502, and 701 of the act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, and 371). Most of the regulations under parts 800, 801, and 809 are derived from requirements of section 502 of the act, which provides in part, that a device shall be misbranded if among other things, its label or labeling fails to bear certain required information concerning the device, is false or misleading in any particular way, or fails to contain adequate directions for use. *Reporting Burden* Sections 800.10(a)(3) and 800.12(c) require that the label for contact lens cleaning solutions bear a prominent statement alerting consumers of the tamper-resistant feature. Further, § 800.12 requires that packaged contact lens cleaning solutions contain a tamper-resistant feature, to prevent malicious adulteration. Section 800.10(b)(2) requires that the labeling for liquid ophthalmic preparations packed in multiple-dose containers provide information on the duration of use and the necessary warning information to afford adequate protection from contamination during use. Section 801.1 requires that the label for a device in package form, contain the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. Section 801.5 requires that labeling for a device include information on intended use as defined under § 801.4 and provide adequate directions to assure safe use by the lay consumers. Section 801.61 requires that the principal display panel of an over-the-counter
(OTC)device in package form must bear a statement of the identity of the device. The statement of identity of the device must include the common name of the device followed by an accurate statement of the principal intended actions of the device. Section 801.62 requires that the label for an OTC device in package form must bear a statement of declaration of the net quantity of contents. The label must express the net quantity in terms of weight, measure, numerical count, or a combination of numerical count and weight, measure, or size. Section 801.109 establishes labeling requirements for prescription devices, in which the label for the device must describe the application or use of the device, and contain a cautionary statement restricting the device for sale by, or on the order of an appropriate professional. For prescription by a licensed practitioner, § 801.110 establishes labeling requirements for a prescription device delivered to the ultimate purchaser or user. The device must be accompanied by labeling bearing the name and address of the licensed practitioner, directions for use, and cautionary statements if any, provided by the order. Section 801.150(e) requires a written agreement between firms involved when a non-sterile device is assembled or packaged with labeling that identifies the final finished device as sterile, for which the device is ultimately introduced into interstate commerce to an establishment or contract manufacturer to be sterilized. When a written agreement complies with the requirements under § 801.150(e), FDA takes no regulatory action against the device as being misbranded or adulterated. In addition, § 801.150(e) requires that each pallet, carton, or other designated unit, be conspicuously marked to show its non-sterile nature when introduced into interstate commerce, and while being held prior to sterilization. Section 801.405(b)(1) provides for labeling requirements for articles, including repair kits, re-liners, pads, and cushions, intended for use in temporary repairs and refitting of dentures for lay persons. Section 801.405(b)(1) also requires that the labeling contain the word “emergency” preceding and modifying each indication-for-use statement for denture repair kits and the word “temporary” preceding and modifying each indication-for-use statement for re-liners, pads, and cushions. Section 801.405(c) provides for labeling requirements that contain essentially the same information described under § 801.405(b)(1). The information is intended to enable a lay person to understand the limitations of using OTC denture repair kits, and denture re-liners, pads, and cushions. Section 801.420(c)(1) requires that manufacturers or distributors of hearing aids develop a user instructional brochure to be provided by the dispenser of the hearing aid to prospective users. The brochure must contain detailed information on the use and maintenance of the hearing aid. Section 801.420(c)(4) establishes requirements that the user instructional brochure or separate labeling, provide for technical data elements useful for selecting, fitting, and checking the performance of a hearing aid. In addition, § 801.420(c)(4) provides for testing requirements to determine that the required data elements must be conducted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute's
(ANSI)“Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics,” ANSI S3.22-1996 (ASA 70-1996); (Revision of ANSI S3.22-1987), which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Section 801.421(b) establishes requirement for the hearing aid dispenser to provide prospective users with a copy of the user instructional brochure along with an opportunity to review comments, either orally or by the predominant method of communication used during the sale. Section 801.421(c) establishes requirements for the hearing aid dispenser to provide a copy of the user instructional brochure to the prospective purchaser of any hearing aid upon request or, if the brochure is unavailable, provide the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor from which it may be obtained. Section 801.430(d) establishes labeling requirements for menstrual tampons to provide information on signs, risk factors, and ways to reduce the risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). Section 801.430(e)(2) requires menstrual tampon package labels to provide information on the absorbency term based on testing required under § 801.430(f) and an explanation of selecting absorbencies that reduce the risk of contracting TSS. Section 801.430(f) establishes requirements that manufacturers of menstrual tampons devise and follow an ongoing sampling plan for measuring the absorbency of menstrual tampons. Further, manufacturers must use the method and testing parameters described under this section. Section 801.435(b), (c), and
(h)establishes requirements for condom labeling to bear an expiration date that is supported by testing that demonstrates the integrity of three random lots of the product. Section 809.10(a) and
(b)establishes requirements that a label for an in vitro diagnostic device and the accompanying labeling (package insert), must contain information identifying its intended use, instructions for use and lot or control number, and source. Section 809.10(d)(1) provides that the labeling requirements for general purpose laboratory reagents may be exempt from the requirements of § 809.10(a) and (b), if the labeling contains information identifying its intended use, instructions for use, lot or control number, and source. Section 809.10(e) provides that the labeling for “Analytic Specific Reagents”
(ASRs)must provide information identifying the quantity or proportion or each reagent ingredient, instructions for use, lot or control number, and source. Section 809.10(f) provides that, the labeling for OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse must include information on the intended use, specimen collection instructions, identification system, and information about use of the test results. In addition, § 809.10(f) requires that this information be in a language appropriate for the intended users. Section 809.30(d) requires that advertising and promotional materials for ASRs include the identity and purity of the ASR and the identity of the analyte. *Recordkeeping Burden* Section 801.150(a)(2) establishes recordkeeping requirements for re-processors, re-labelers, or re-packagers to retain a copy of the agreement containing the specifications for the processing, labeling, or repacking of the device for 2 years after the shipment or delivery of the device. Section 801.150(a)(2) also requires that the subject respondents make copies of this agreement available for inspection at any reasonable hour to any officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), upon their request. Section 801.421(d) establishes requirements for hearing aid dispensers to retain copies of all physician statements or any waivers of medical evaluation for 3 years after dispensing the hearing aid. Section 801.410(e) requires copies of invoices, shipping documents, and records of sale or distribution of all impact resistant lenses, including finished eyeglasses and sunglasses, be maintained for 3 years by the retailer and made available upon request by any officer or employee of FDA or by any other officer or employee acting on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Section 801.410(f) requires that the results of impact tests and description of the test method and apparatus be retained for a period of 3 years. Section 801.421(d) requires hearing aid dispensers to retain a copy of any written statement from a physician required under § 801.421(a)(1), or any written statement waiving medical evaluation required under § 801.421(a)(2)(iii) for 3 years after the dispensing the hearing aid. Section 801.435(g) requires latex condom manufacturers to document and provide, upon request, an appropriate justification for the application of the testing data from one product on any variation of that product to support expiration dating in the user labeling. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table** 1.— **Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 800.10(a)(3) and 800.12(c) 4 10 40 1 40 800.10(b)(2) 4 10 40 40 1,600 801.1 30,000 3.5 105,000 0.1 10,500 801.5 5,000 3.5 17,500 22.35 391,125 801.61 5,000 3.5 17,500 1 17,500 801.62 1,000 5 5,000 1 5,000 801.109 18,000 3.5 63,000 17.77 1,119,510 801.110 10,000 50 500,000 0.25 125,000 801.150(e) 2 1 2 0.50 1 801.405(b)(1) 40 1 40 4 160 801.405(c) 40 1 40 4 160 801.420(c)(1) 275 5 1,375 40 55,000 801.420(c)(4) 275 5 1,375 80 110,000 801.421(b) 10,000 160 1,600,000 0.30 480,000 801.421(c) 10,000 5 50,000 0.17 8,500 801.430(d) 8 5 40 2 80 801.430(e)(2) 8 5 40 2 80 801.430(f) 8 5 40 80 3,200 801.435(b), (c), and
(h)135 1 135 96 12,960 809.10(a) and
(b)1,700 6 10,200 80 816,000 809.10(d)(1) 300 2 600 40 24,000 809.10(e) 300 25 7,500 1 7,500 809.10(f) 20 1 20 100 2,000 809.30(d) 300 25 7,500 1 7,500 Total 3,197,416 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. **Table** 2.— **Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Recordkeepers Annual Frequency per Recordkeeping Total Annual Records Hours per Record Total Hours 801.150(a)(2) 57 1 57 0.50 28 801.410(e) 30 769,000 23,070,000 0.25 5,767,500 801.410(f) 30 769,000 23,070,000 0.25 5,767,500 801.421(d) 10,000 160 1,600,000 0.25 400,000 Total Hours 11,935,028 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. This regulation also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information under §§ 800.12(d) and 801.437(i) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0183; the collections of information under § 800.12(e) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information under § 801.435(g) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073. Further, FDA concludes that labeling statements under §§ 801.63, 801.405(b)(2) and (b)(3), 801.420(c)(2) and (c)(3), 801.430(c) and (e)(1), 801.433, 801.437(d) through (g), 809.30(d)(2) and (d)(3), and 809.30(e) do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA. Rather, these labeling statements are “public disclosure” of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of “disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)). *Reporting* These estimates are based on FDA's registration and listing database for medical device establishments, agency communications with industry, and FDA's knowledge of and experience with device labeling. *Recordkeeping* These estimates are based on FDA's registration and listing database for medical device establishments, agency communications with industry, and FDA's knowledge of and experience with device labeling. In addition, the Vision Council of America provided the growth rate used to estimate the burden under § 801.410(e) through (f). This regulation also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information under §§ 800.12(d) and 801.437(i) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0183; and the collections of information under § 800.12(e) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231. The information collection requirements under §§ 801.22, 801.63, 801.405(b)(2) and (b)(3), 801.420(c)(2) and (c)(3), 801.430(c) and (e)(1), 801.433, 801.437(d) through (g), 809.30(d)(2) and (d)(3), and 809.30(e) are not considered information collection because the public information is originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)). We have not estimated a burden for information that is disclosed to third parties, because it is a “usual and customary” part of a medical device manufacturer, distributor, or importer's normal business activities. Nor have we estimated a burden for time that is spent designing labels to improve the format or presentation. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: April 16, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-8710 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0234] Developing Guidance on Conducting Scientifically Sound Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Large Electronic Healthcare Data Sets; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER)and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER)at the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)are announcing a public workshop entitled “Developing Guidance on Conducting Scientifically Sound Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Large Electronic Healthcare Data Sets.” The purpose of the public workshop is to solicit information and views from interested persons on best practices and principles for the design and evaluation of pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using large electronic healthcare data sets. The input from this workshop will be used to develop a draft Guidance to Industry, and to provide consistent review criteria for FDA to use in evaluating protocols and study reports submitted to the agency. DATES: The public workshop will be held on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. See section III of this document for information on the deadline and on how to attend or present at the meeting. Written or electronic comments must be submitted to the docket by June 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held in the Ballroom at the Crowne Plaza Hotel Washington DC-Silver Spring, MD at 8777 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910. Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons may submit written electronic comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Pauls, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, rm. 6196, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-0518, FAX: 301-847-8753, e-mail: *lana.pauls@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background As part of the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA IV), FDA committed to certain performance goals (see *http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa4/pdufa4goals.html* ). In one of these goals, FDA agreed to identify, with input from academia, industry, and others from the general public, epidemiology best practices and to develop guidance(s) describing these practices. In addition, in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, Public Law 110-85, 121 Stat. 823 *et seq.* ), Congress directed FDA to develop and implement a postmarket risk identification and analysis system that would include, among other things, advanced analysis of drug safety data (FDAAA, section 905, 121 Stat. 944). This workshop represents the first step in meeting the PDUFA goal and will provide valuable information as we build our active postmarket surveillance system. New technologies and the ability to assemble large data sets for use in epidemiologic research of drug safety issues have precipitated a great deal of discussion over the appropriate use of these data in conducting pharmacoepidemiologic studies. FDA is committed to developing guidance to identify and encourage the use of best practices in the conduct of epidemiologic studies of drug safety issues by industry, FDA, and academic researchers. Experts from industry, academia, and the general public are invited to contribute ideas and concepts for consideration. The workshop objectives are as follows:
(1)Initiate constructive dialogue and information-sharing among regulators, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, health organizations, and individuals about the design, conduct and interpretation of pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data sets;
(2)share current FDA experiences regarding the evaluation of protocols and study reports submitted to the agency; and
(3)obtain input on developing consistent review criteria for FDA to use in evaluating protocols and study reports submitted to the agency. Two panel discussions will focus on areas in which the agency requests input. Panel 1 will focus on characteristics of electronic data used to conduct pharmacoepidemiologic studies for use in regulatory assessment of product safety. Topics include: differences in health care coverage, determinants of enrollment, country or region of data collection, characteristics of various healthcare systems and how these might impact on the interpretation and the generalizability of the results to the U.S. patient population. Specific questions include: 1. What information and what level of detail are needed for FDA to ensure the appropriateness of the data source to address the product safety questions being asked? How does this differ by type of data source (electronic medical records
(EMR)vs. claims)? 2. What are the challenges of using enrollment data for defining study populations in claims databases? Describe effective strategies for addressing the absence of formal enrollment data in some EMR systems. 3. Under what circumstances should FDA consider studies using non-U.S. electronic data sources in its assessment of product safety questions? Panel 2 will focus on characteristics related to study design, conduct and interpretation of pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies, specifically those using electronic healthcare data sources. Topics include issues pertinent to definition of exposure, ascertainment of outcome, analysis of data, and interpretation of study findings and will address the following questions: 1. How can FDA assure that the study design accurately captures the clinical events, exposures of interest, and confounding factors needed to answer the product safety question under investigation? 2. What are effective strategies to address confounding by indication and the effect of measured and unmeasured confounders? 3. What are other challenges to internal and external validity in studies using EMR and claims databases? What are the best practices for addressing them? FDA is working to refine the workshop agenda and to invite panel members. We are seeking broad participation by safety researchers, health system officials, the pharmaceutical industry, and others. We anticipate issuing a summary of the workshop, including a discussion of implications and next steps for further development. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . III. Attendance and Registration The Workshop facility, the Ballroom in the Crowne Plaza Hotel at 8777 Georgia Ave. in Silver Spring, MD is not a secure facility. Seating will be made available on a first-come basis. Individual interested in attending the workshop need not register. Individuals who wish to speak during the public workshop must register on or before April 7, 2008. You should identify the subject matter you wish to address during the public workshop. Please specify Panel 1, or Panel 2 (see **I. Background** ). To register to speak, contact *lana.pauls@fda.hhs.gov* or call 301-796-0518. Ample time will be allowed during the scheduled agenda for attendees to ask questions of panelists. In addition, we strongly encourage written comments to the docket. If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Lana Pauls (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 7 days before the workshop. IV. Workshop Transcripts Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm.* It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857. Dated: April 17, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-8772 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. *Name of Committee:* Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). *Date:* May 12, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* Agency updates; reports from Services Subcommittee, town hall meeting; presentation of Strategic Planning Workgroup recommendations for IACC strategic plan for autism spectrum disorder
(ASD)research; review draft of summary of advances in ASD research. *Place:* Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Rotunda, North Tower, 8th Floor, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-312-1300. *Contact Person:* Tanya Pryor, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6187, MSC 9669, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669,
(301)443-7153, *pryort@mail.nih.gov* . Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. In the interest of security, all guests and vehicles are screened upon entry into the underground parking garage at the Ronald Reagan Building. Please allow extra time for this process. A registration link and information about the meeting will be available on the IACC Web site: *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/scientific-meetings/recurring-meetings/iacc/events/index.shtml* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS). Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8724 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee I—Career Development. *Date:* May 19-20, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. *Contact Person:* Robert Bird, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8113, MSC 8328, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, 301-496-7978, *birdr@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Innovative Technologies for Molecular Analysis of Cancer. *Date:* June 25-26, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Jeffrey E. DeClue, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8059, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-7904, *decluej@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research II. *Date:* July 15-17, 2008. *Time:* 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877. *Contact Person:* Thomas M. Vollberg, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7142, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-9582, *vollbert@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8609 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Advisory Committee. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials; Advisory Committee. *Date:* June 25, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* Update on the progress of the implementation of the Clinical Trials Working Group and the Translational Research Working Group reports. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, 6th Floor, C-Wing, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Sheila A. Prindiville, MD, Director, Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 507, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-5048, *prindivs@mail.nih.gov* . Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8721 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* June 16-17, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Courtyard by Marriott Gaithersburg, Washingtonian Center, 204 Boardwalk Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. *Contact Person:* Peter Kozel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NCCAM, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475, 301-496-8004, *kozelp@mail.nih.gov.* Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8712 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Loan Repayment Program Applications. *Date:* May 13, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300,
(301)451-2020, *aes@nei.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8605 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Maximizing the Scientific Value of the Biologic Specimens from the Women's Health Initiative. *Date:* May 21-22, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* BWI Airport Marriott, 1743 West Nursery Road, Baltimore, MD 21240. *Contact Person:* Chang Sook Kim, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0314, *carolko@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8722 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Human Genome Research Institute Initial Review Group Genome Research Review Committee; Teleconference. *Date:* June 5, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health/NHGRI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Twinbrook Conference Room, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Keith McKenney, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NHGRI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-594-4280, *mckenneyk@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8611 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council. The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council. *Date:* May 15-16, 2008. *Closed:* May 15, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Open:* May 16, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to adjournment. *Agenda:* For the discussion of program policies and issues, opening remarks, report of the Director, NIGMS, and other business of the Council. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Ann A. Hagan, PhD, Associate Director for Extramural Activities, NIGMS, NIH, DHHS, 45 Center Drive, Room 2AN24H, MSC6200, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200,
(301)594-4499, *hagana@nigms.nih.gov* . Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: *http://www.nigms.nih.gov/about/advisory_council.html* , where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8608 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; P01 for Uterine Leiomyoma Research Center Program, Northwestern University, Chicago. *Date:* May 13, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304,
(301)435-6680, *skandasa@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; AREA Grant in Development Biology. *Date:* May 28-29, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division Of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 208 92,
(301)496-1485, *changn@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8610 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council. The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Advisory Mental Health Council. *Date:* May 22-23, 2008. *Closed:* May 22, 2008, 10:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference Room C/D/E, Rockville, MD 20852. *Open:* May 22, 2008, 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* Discussion on NIMH programs. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, C Wing, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Open:* May 23, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. *Agenda:* Presentation of NIMH Director's report and discussion on NIMH program and policy issues. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C Wing, 31 Center Drive, 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Jane A. Steinberg, PhD, Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9609, Bethesda, MD 20892-9609, 301-443-5047. Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/council/advis.cfm,* where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8612 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Health ABC. *Date:* May 9, 2008. *Time:* 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20814, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute on Aging, The Bethesda Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(301)496-9666. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Regulation of Bone Mass Accrual by Serotonin. *Date:* May 22, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Aging, Gateway, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707, *elainelewis@nia.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 15, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8613 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA CEBRA Review. *Date:* May 9, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Mark Swieter, PhD, Chief, Training and Special Projects Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,
(301)435-1389, *ms80x@nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Initial Review Group; Treatment Research Subcommittee. *Date:* June 4-5, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Jurys Washington Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Gerald L. McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-402-6626, *gm145a@nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Initial Review Group; Training and Career Development Subcommittee. *Date:* July 8-9, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Doubletree Hotel Washington DC, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. *Contact Person:* Eliane Lazar-Wesley, PhD, Health Scientist Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Room 220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-451-4530, *el6r@nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8715 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Develop State-of-the-Art Mechanisms for Epidemiological Research. *Date:* May 12, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Kristen V Huntley, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-435-1433, *huntleyk@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; CJ DATS 2: Coordinating Center and Data and Safety Monitoring Board Support. *Date:* May 20, 2008. *Time:* 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,
(301)435-1439, *lf33c.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8716 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Mathematical Cognition and Specific Learning Disabilities. *Date:* April 29, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Blvd., 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8717 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; The Interaction of HIV, Drug Abuse and Criminal Justice System. *Date:* May 22, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Kristen V Huntley, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-435-1433, *huntleyk@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Initial Review Group; Medication Development Research Subcommittee. *Date:* June 2, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Jose F Ruiz, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6101 Executive Blvd., Rm. 213, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3086, *ruizjf@nida.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8719 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings. *Date:* April 29, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Margaret Weidman, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3ANI8B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3663, *weidmanma@nigms.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 16, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-8720 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008] National Advisory Council AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the date, time, location and agenda for the next meeting of the National Advisory Council (NAC). At the meeting, the newly formed subcommittees will be reporting back regarding their work since the meeting in February, 2008. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: *Meeting Dates:* Wednesday, May 14, 2008, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, May 15, 2008, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. A public comment period will take place on the afternoon of May 15, 2008, approximately between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. *Comment Date:* Written comments or requests to make oral presentations must be received by May 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 10249 W. Irving Park Road, Chicago, IL. Persons wishing to make an oral presentation or who are unable to attend or speak at the meeting may submit written comments. Written comments and requests to make oral presentations at the meeting should be provided to the address listed below and must be received by May 6, 2008. All submissions received must include the Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008 and may be submitted by any one of the following methods: *Federal Rulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Web site. *E-mail:* *FEMA-RULES@dhs.gov* . Include Docket ID in the subject line of the message. *Facsimile:*
(866)466-5370. *Mail:* Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008. Comments received will also be posted without alteration at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the National Advisory Council, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyson Price, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., (E Street, 3rd Floor), Washington, DC 20472, telephone 202-646-3746, fax 202-646-3061, and e-mail *FEMA-NAC@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1 *et seq.* ). The NAC will meet for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the newly formed subcommittees, will receive an update on the Regional Advisory Councils, transition issues and other matters. *Public Attendance:* The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early, if all business is finished. Persons with disabilities who require special assistance should advise the Designated Federal Officer of their anticipated special needs as early as possible. Members of the public who wish to make comments on Thursday May 15, between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. are requested to register in advance. In order to allow as many people as possible to speak, speakers are requested to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. For those wishing to submit written comments, please follow the procedure noted above. Dated: April 15, 2008. R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-8828 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-48-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Country of Origin Marking for the Republic of Kosovo AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice of policy. SUMMARY: On February 18, 2008, the United States recognized the Republic of Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state and announced that full diplomatic relations would begin immediately. This document notifies the public of the name and English spelling that is to be used for country of origin marking on merchandise imported into the United States from the Republic of Kosovo. The notice also establishes a transition period during which Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)will permit the importation of merchandise from the newly independent state with the marking, “Serbia.” DATES: April 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Mojica, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade,
(202)572-8789. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)has authority pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1304 to determine the character of the words and phrases or abbreviations thereof that will be acceptable as indicating the country of origin, and may require the addition of any other words or symbols which may be appropriate to prevent deception or mistake as to the origin of the article. In view of the political independence of the Republic of Kosovo, and in recognition of their independent status by the United States as of February 18, 2008, merchandise originating in that country and imported into the United States is subject to marking with the English name of the independent state. The short form English name of the newly independent country is: “Kosovo.” It is acceptable for merchandise to be marked using long form names such as “Republic of Kosovo,” provided that the short form name is part of the phrase. Recognizing that manufacturers and importers may need time to adjust to these changes, and that an abrupt change could cause undue hardship, CBP will permit goods from the Republic of Kosovo to be marked “Serbia” until February 18, 2009. After that date, all merchandise originating in the Republic of Kosovo will be required to be marked with the new names as set forth above. Dated: April 16, 2008. Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E8-8753 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2008-0049] Notice of Meeting of The Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions
(COAC)AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions (popularly known as “COAC”) will meet on May 9, 2008, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public. DATE: COAC will meet Friday, May 9th from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. If you plan to attend, please contact Ms. Wanda Tate on or before Tuesday, May 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building in the Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Written material and comments should reach the contact person listed below by May 2nd. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee prior to the meeting should reach the contact person at the address below by May 2, 2008. Comments must be identified by USCBP-2008-0049 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *traderelations@dhs.gov* . Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 202-344-2064. • *Mail:* Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of International Affairs and Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Room 8.5C, Washington, DC 20229. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the COAC, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of International Affairs and Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 8.5C, Washington, DC 20229; *traderelations@dhs.gov* ; telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-344-2064. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., app.), DHS hereby announces the meeting of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions (COAC). COAC is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within DHS or the Department of the Treasury. The sixth meeting of the tenth term of COAC will be held at the date, time and location specified above. A tentative agenda for the meeting is set forth below. Tentative Agenda 1. Post Incident Response. 2. Advance Trade Data (“10+2”). 3. Secure Freight Initiative. 4. C-TPAT (Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism) and CSI (Container Security Initiative). 5. Conveyance Security Devices. 6. ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) Programs Status/ITDS (International Trade Data Systems). 7. International Trade Issues/Updates. 8. Import Safety Initiatives. 9. World Customs Organization & Mutual Recognition Status. 10. Proposed Revisions to In-Bond Process. 11. Automated Export System (AES). 12. Agriculture Program Update. Procedural This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. Participation in COAC deliberations is limited to committee members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations. All visitors to the Ronald Reagan building will have to go through a security checkpoint to be admitted to the building. Since seating is limited, all persons attending this meeting should provide notice, preferably by close of business Tuesday, May 6, 2008, to Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20229, telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-344-2064. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate as soon as possible. Dated: April 17, 2008. Michael C. Mullen, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Affairs and Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E8-8758 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5186-N-16] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone
(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired
(202)708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration* , No. 88-2503-OG, (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal Buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week. Dated: April 10, 2008. Mark Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. [FR Doc. E8-8068 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-M DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5187-N-23] HOPE VI Program AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. The information is required to allow HUD to obligate grant funds in accordance with the HOPE VI program authorizing statute, and to manage the grants that are awarded. DATES: *Comments Due Date: May 23, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577-0208) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone
(202)402-8048. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* HOPE VI Program. *OMB Approval Number:* 2577-0208. *Form Numbers:* HUD-52825-A, HUD-52860-A, HUD-52774, HUD-52780, HUD-52785, HUD-52787, HUD-52861, HUD-52790, HUD-52797, HUD-52798, HUD-52799, HUD-52800, HUD-53001-A, SF-424, SF-LLL, HUD-27061, HUD-27300, HUD-2880, HUD-96010, HUD-96011, *Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:* The information is required to allow HUD to obligate grant funds in accordance with the HOPE VI program authorizing statute, and to manage the grants that are awarded. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion, Quarterly, Semi-annually, Annually. Number of respondents × Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting burden 286 4.81 19.08 26,263 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 26,263. *Status:* Revision of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: April 18, 2008. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8833 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5187-N-22] Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. The Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost is submitted by the mortgagor to certify actual costs of development in order to make an informed determination of mortgage insurance acceptability and to prevent windfall profits. Its use provides a base for evaluating housing programs, labor costs, and physical improvements in connection with the construction of multifamily housing. DATES: *Comments Due Date: May 23, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0112) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone
(202)402-8048. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost. *OMB Approval Number:* 2502-0112. *Form Numbers:* HUD-92330. *Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:* The Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost is submitted by the mortgagor to certify actual costs of development in order to make an informed determination of mortgage insurance acceptability and to prevent windfall profits. Its use provides a base for evaluating housing programs, labor costs, and physical improvements in connection with the construction of multifamily housing. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion, Other At final endorsement. Number of respondents × Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting burden 500 1 8 4,000 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 4,000. *Status:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: April 18, 2008. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8830 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [FR-5130-N-22] Privacy Act; Proposed New System of Records, Tracking-at-a-Glance® Case Management Services for the Disaster Housing Assistance Program AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notification of the establishment of a new System of Records, Tracking-at-a-Glance® (TAAG). SUMMARY: HUD proposes to establish a new Privacy Act record system to add to its inventory of systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed new system of records is the TAAG case management system. This record system will be used for program implementation activities related to the Disaster Housing Assistance Program
(DHAP)case management services. DHAP is a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)pilot grant program to provide temporary rental subsidies and case management for non-HUD assisted individuals and families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. HUD is the servicing agency that administers the DHAP program for FEMA. DATES: *Effective Date:* This action shall be effective without further notice on May 23, 2008, unless comments are received during or before this period that would result in a contrary determination. *Comment Due Date:* May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile
(FAX)comments are not accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number
(202)402-8073 (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunication device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals
(TTY)is available at
(800)877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 2007, HUD and FEMA executed an Interagency Agreement
(IAA)under which HUD acts as the servicing agency for administering the DHAP program. Pursuant to FEMA's grant authority, grants are provided to local PHAs to administer DHAP on behalf of FEMA. Under DHAP, public housing authorities
(PHAs)will make rental assistance payments on behalf of eligible families to participating landlords for the duration of the program, ending on March 1, 2009. In order to prepare the family for this eventuality, FEMA requires that case management services be provided for the entire duration of DHAP. The objectives of these services are greater self-sufficiency and permanent housing status for participating individuals and families. This will include assisting program participants identify non-disaster supported housing solutions such as other affordable housing options that may be available for income eligible families. PHAs are required to report case management outputs and outcomes through TAAG, which is the DHAP case management reporting system for the duration of the program. TAAG will contain personal identifying information from PHAs about program participants; such as, name, social security number, etc. Please refer to the following “categories of records” section for other personal/sensitive data types collected, maintained and disseminated by this system. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and
(11)provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on the new system of records. The new system report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix 1 to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914). Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d). Dated: April 16, 2008. Joseph M. Milazzo, Acting Chief Information Officer. HUD/PIH-06 SYSTEM NAME: Tracking-at-a-Glance®
(TAAG)case management system for the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). SYSTEM LOCATION: Hollywood, Florida. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals who are covered by this system are individuals and families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, who receive rental subsidy through the DHAP and agree to all program requirements including case management. CATEGORIES OF RECORD IN THE SYSTEM: Files contain identifying information about the program participants and their household members such as name, social security number, and current address. In addition, the files contain information about education level, employment and training needs, elderly and disabled status, social service needs and service referrals. The client provides information regarding education level, employment and training, disability status and social service needs as information that the case manager may use to assess any barriers to permanent housing attainment and/or increased self-sufficiency. The case manager uses this information in order to identify appropriate service referrals, to help prepare clients for the eventual end of the DHAP in March 2009. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Legal authority for DHAP is based on the Department of Homeland Security's general grant authority under section 102(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, and sections 408(b)(1), 426 and 306(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5174(b)(1), § 5189d and § 5149(a), respectively. PURPOSE: TAAG captures pertinent data relating to family self-sufficiency, permanent housing status and service needs. TAAG supports DHAP grantees in their case management efforts, HUD staff in their program monitoring activities and providing required reports to FEMA in fulfillment of its responsibilities outlined within the IAA. The system was procured through contract number: C-DEN-02199. The system allows DHAP grantees to implement and report case management services for FEMA's DHAP program, for which HUD is the servicing agent. This system will assist with the implementation and administering of rental housing assistance and case management services to individuals and families whose residence have been rendered uninhabitable as a result of the disaster caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The data stored in this system of records may be used for research and statistical purposes. In such cases, data presented in any research report will be aggregated to a level that does not disclose information that can be used to identify any individual represented in the system. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act other routine uses include:
(a)To Case Managers—for caseload management and to track the progress and outcomes of individuals enrolled in the DHAP;
(b)To PHAs to monitor outcomes and monitor case management activities being provided at the local level;
(c)To FEMA—quarterly data reporting as required under the IAA to monitor program activities at the national level;
(d)To HUD or individuals under contract, grant or cooperative agreement to HUD, to monitor PHA efforts and compliance requirements, facilitate technical assistance and for research and evaluation of national program outcomes; and
(e)To HUD or individuals under contract, grant or cooperative agreement to HUD to monitor PHA activities and facilitate technical assistance to DHAP grantees. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Records are stored electronically on a computer server located at: Southern Data Systems, 11560 SW 120th Street, Miami, FL 33176. RETRIEVABILITY: Records are retrieved by PHA name, participant's name, city, zip code, or general demographic characteristics. Clients cannot be searched through the use of a social security number. SAFEGUARDS: Records are maintained on a secure computer network protected by a firewall. Access to system is restricted to authorized users only, requires a user ID and is password protected. No manual files with unique identifier information that would allow an individual to be linked to the information in the file will be maintained. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Information is archived electronically and stored. Records will be retained and disposed of in accordance with the General Records Schedule included in HUD Handbook 2228.2, appendix 14, items 21-26. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Tony Hebert, Public and Indian Housing, Office of Public Housing Investments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410. NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: The Department's rules for providing access to records to the individual concerned are in accordance with 24 CFR part 16—Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974. Individuals seeking information, assistance, or inquiry about the existence of records should contact the Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410. Written requests must include the full name, current address, and telephone number of the individual making the request, as well as proof of identity, including a description of the requester's relationship to the information in question. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The procedures for contesting the contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16—Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974. If additional information or assistance is required, contact:
(i)The Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410, if contesting the content of record; or
(ii)The Departmental Privacy Appeals Officer, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, for appeals of initial denials. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: DHAP housing authority grantees, case managers, contractors, and HUD employees. EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: None. [FR Doc. E8-8844 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [FWS-R1-R-2008-N0040; 1265-0000-10137-S3] Papaha naumokua kea Marine National Monument, Hawai‘i AGENCIES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability for the draft monument management plan and environmental assessment; announcement of public meetings; request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that NOAA, FWS, and the State of Hawai‘i's Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), and Office of Hawaiian Affairs have prepared a Draft Monument Management Plan
(MMP)and associated environmental assessment
(EA)for the Papaha naumokua kea Marine National Monument (Monument) located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), which includes all federal lands and waters within its boundaries. The State of Hawai‘i is a Cooperating Agency on the development of the MMP and EA. The Monument's resources and management activities, ongoing and proposed, are described in the Draft MMP. The MMP is available for public review and comments. Ten public meetings are scheduled to obtain your comments on and answer your questions about the Draft MMP, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments by July 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Draft MMP and EA are available on the FWS and NOAA Web sites *http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands* and *http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/* , as well as at local libraries within the State of Hawai‘i. You may provide written comments on the Draft MMP and EA by any of the following methods: *U.S. Mail:* Papaha naumokua kea Marine National Monument, Attn: Susan White, FWS Superintendent, Box 50167, Honolulu, HI 96850-5000; or *E-mail:* *PMNM_MMP_Comments@fws.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan White, FWS Superintendent, phone
(808)792-9480. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monument Background On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush established the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument by issuing Presidential Proclamation 8031 (Proclamation) (71 FR 36443, June 26, 2006) under the authority of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) (the Antiquities Act). On December 8, 2006, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior and the Governor of Hawai‘i signed a Memorandum of Agreement to jointly manage Federal and State lands and waters within the Monument as Co-Trustees and to collectively protect, conserve, and enhance Monument marine and terrestrial habitats and resources. On February 28, 2007, President Bush amended the Proclamation to rename the Monument—Papaha naumokua kea Marine National Monument—to reflect Hawaiian language and culture (72 FR 10031, March 6, 2007). Location, Size, and Federal and State Resource Management Proclamation 8031 reserves all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), including emergent and submerged lands and waters out to a distance of approximately 50 nautical miles from the islands. The Monument is approximately 100 nautical miles wide and extends approximately 1,200 miles around coral islands, seamounts, banks, and shoals. The area includes the: • Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, • Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge/Battle of Midway National Memorial, • Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, • Hawaii State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure Atoll, and • State of Hawai‘i's Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge. NOAA maintains responsibility for managing the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, included within the Monument, and has primary responsibility regarding the management of the marine areas of the Monument, in consultation with FWS. Refuge areas within the Monument, including the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, the Battle of Midway National Memorial, and the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, are managed by FWS. The State maintains responsibility for managing state lands and waters within the Monument, including the NWHI State Marine Refuge and State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure Atoll. Public Outreach and the MMP's Relationship to Previous Plans As directed by Proclamation 8031, the Co-Trustees modified NOAA's Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Proposed National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan (available at *http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov* ), as appropriate, to create the Draft MMP. The MMP also builds upon the Interim Midway Visitor Services Plan (available at *http://www.fws.gov/midway* ). Nearly 52,000 comments were received during NOAA's Sanctuary planning process, and a total of 6,282 comments were received on FWS's Draft Interim Midway Visitor Services Plan. Comments and issues raised during these planning efforts that are subject to decision by the Co-Trustees were considered during development of the Draft MMP. A summary of public involvement and the issues raised during scoping are included in the Draft MMP. Management Planning Process and MMP Framework The Draft EA of the MMP was developed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); other appropriate Federal laws and regulations; and agency policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations. The EA has also been developed in accordance with the state environmental review requirements under Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statues. FWS' refuge comprehensive conservation planning requirements, State of Hawai‘i's DLNR planning needs along with consultation with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs regarding Native Hawaiian traditional and cultural resources, rights and practices, and other elements were also incorporated into the Draft MMP. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), requires the FWS to develop a comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP)for every national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and FWS policies. In addition to conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreation available to the public. Draft MMP/EA Alternatives Two alternatives are analyzed in the Draft MMP and EA; a No Action Alternative and a Proposed Action Alternative (the preferred alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the Co-Trustees would continue to implement activities to address priority management needs based on agency-specific plans. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the Co-Trustees would implement new and expanded activities, in addition to ongoing activities, to manage high priority needs. The Monument's priority management needs are to: understand and interpret Monument resources, conserve wildlife and habitats, reduce threats to Monument resources, manage human activities, facilitate coordination, and achieve effective operations. Action plans consisting of multiple strategies and activities address the priority management needs. The 22 action plans and corresponding desired outcomes follow. *Marine Conservation Science:* Increase understanding of the distributions, abundances and functional linkages of marine organisms and their habitats to improve ecosystem-based management decisions in the Monument. *Native Hawaiian Culture and History:* Increase understanding and appreciation of Native Hawaiian histories and cultural practices related to the Monument and effectively manage cultural resources for their cultural, educational, and scientific values. *Historic Resources:* Identify, document, preserve, protect, stabilize, and where appropriate, reuse, recover, and interpret historic resources associated with Midway Atoll and other areas within the Monument. *Maritime Heritage Action Plan:* Identify, interpret, and protect maritime heritage resources in the Monument. *Threatened and Endangered Species:* Protect marine mammals and aid in the recovery of threatened and endangered plants and animals within the Monument. *Migratory Birds:* Conserve migratory bird populations and habitats within the Monument. *Habitat Management and Conservation:* Protect and maintain all the native ecosystems and biological diversity of the Monument. *Marine Debris:* Reduce the adverse effects of marine debris to Monument resources and reduce the amount of debris entering the North Pacific Ocean. *Alien Species:* Detect, control, eradicate where possible, and prevent the introduction of alien species into the Monument. *Maritime Transportation and Aviation:* Investigate, identify, and reduce potential threats to the Monument from maritime and aviation traffic. *Emergency Response:* Minimize damage to Monument resources through coordinated emergency response and assessment. *Permitting:* Implement an effective and integrated permit program for the Monument that manages, minimizes, and prevents negative human impacts by allowing access only for those activities consistent with Presidential Proclamation 8031 and the implementing regulations of the Monument. *Enforcement:* Achieve compliance with all regulations within the Monument. *Midway Atoll Visitor Services:* Offer opportunities for visitors to discover, enjoy, appreciate, protect, and honor the unique natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Monument. *Agency Coordination:* Successfully collaborate with government partners to achieve publicly supported, coordinated management in the Monument. *Constituency Building and Outreach:* Cultivate an informed, involved constituency that supports and enhances conservation of the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Monument. *Native Hawaiian Community Involvement:* Engage the Native Hawaiian community in active and meaningful involvement in the Monument management. *Ocean Ecosystems Literacy:* Cultivate an ocean ecosystems stewardship ethic, contribute to the Nation's science and cultural literacy, and create a new generation of conservation leaders through formal environmental education. *Central Operations:* Conduct effective and well-planned operations with appropriate human resources and adequate physical infrastructure in the main Hawaiian Islands to support management of the Monument. *Information Management:* Consolidate and make accessible relevant information to meet educational, management, and research needs for the Monument. *Coordinated Field Operations:* Coordinate field activities and provide adequate infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient operations while avoiding impacts to the ecosystems in the Monument. *Evaluation:* Determine the degree to which management actions are achieving the goals of the Monument. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, it cannot be guaranteed that we will be able to do so. Public Meetings We will hold a statewide series of meetings where you will have opportunities to ask questions about the MMP and provide formal comments. Except for the Washington, D.C., meeting, each meeting will include two sessions—Session 1 will be an informal “talk story” session, and Session 2 will be a more formal meeting where you may present comments. Session times will be the same on each date, Session 1 will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., and Session 2 will be held from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Meeting details are available on the following Web sites: *http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands* and *http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/.* The Washington, DC, meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. The meeting dates and locations follow: Number Date Location 1 June 9, 2008 Wai‘anae Parks and Recreation Complex, 85-601 Farrington Highway, Wai‘anae, O‘ahu. 2 June 11, 2008 Auditorium, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. 3 June 12, 2008 Maui Arts and Cultural Center, One Cameron Way, Kahului, Maui. 4 June 13, 2008 La na‘i High and Elementary School, 555 Frasier Avenue, La na‘i City, La na‘i. 5 June 16, 2008 Ku lana ‘Oiwi Ha lau, 610 Maunaloa Hwy., Kaunakakai, Moloka‘i. 6 June 17, 2008 He‘eia State Park, 46-465 Kamehameha Highway, Ka ne‘ohe, O‘ahu. 7 June 18, 2008 King Kamehameha Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Kona, Hawai‘i. 8 June 19, 2008 Mokupa papa Discovery Center, 308 Kamehameha Ave., Suite 109, Hilo, Hawai‘i. 9 June 23, 2008 Hilton Kaua‘i Beach Resort, 4331 Kauai Beach Drive, Li hu‘e, Kaua‘i. 10 June 24, 2008 Japanese Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, O‘ahu. Next Step After the comment period ends for the Draft MMP and EA, we will analyze the comments and address them in the final MMP. Dated: April 8, 2008. David J. Wesley, Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. [FR Doc. E8-8362 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0088; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Issuance of Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species and marine mammals. SUMMARY: The following permits were issued. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that
(1)the application was filed in good faith,
(2)the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and
(3)the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Endangered Species Permit no. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 152106, 152108, 152110 Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic, Inc. 72 FR 56785; October 4, 2007 March 17, 2008. 152105, 152111, 152112, 160974, 162714, 162725 Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic, Inc. 72 FR 56785; October 4, 2007 March 18, 2008. 170290 Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic, Inc. 72 FR 72749; December 21, 2007 March 18, 2008. 168186 Saint Louis Zoo 72 FR 73349; December 27, 2007 March 13, 2008. Endangered Marine Mammals Permit no. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 837923 Gordon B. Bauer, New College of Florida 72 FR 73350; December 27, 2007 March 24, 2008. Dated: April 4, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-8786 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-R-2008-N0006; 40136-1265-0000-S3] Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge, Volusia and Lake Counties, FL AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for the Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe alternatives, including our proposed action to manage this refuge for the 15 years following approval of the Final CCP. Also available for review and comment are draft compatibility determinations. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: To provide written comments or to obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA, please contact Cheri Ehrhardt, Area Planner, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 6504, Titusville, FL 32782; or you may e-mail: *LakeWoodruffCCP@fws.gov* . A copy of the Draft CCP/EA is available on compact diskette or hard copy. The Draft CCP/EA may also be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet site: *http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri Ehrhardt; Telephone: 321/861-0667. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice in the **Federal Register** on July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42412). Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1964. This 21,500-acre refuge is comprised of approximately 11,100 acres of freshwater marsh; 7,200 acres of hardwood swamps; 2,400 acres of uplands; and more than 800 acres of lakes, streams, and canals. The refuge also has an additional 652 acres of conservation easement lands on two tracts. The primary purpose of the refuge is for the protection of migratory birds. Background The CCP Process The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act. Public scoping began in July 2006. Issues identified by the public, intergovernmental partners, and the Service include: Impacts of human population growth and increased development adjacent to the refuge boundary; threats and impacts to listed species and migratory birds; lack of a comprehensive habitat management program; spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; lack of baseline data and coordinated research; need for enhanced interagency coordination; need for cooperative management agreements with the State for navigable (State-owned) waterways on the refuge; and lack of sufficient access onto refuge properties. CCP Actions We Are Considering, Including Proposed Action We developed four alternatives for managing the refuge and chose Alternative D as the proposed action. A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below: Under Alternative A, current management of the refuge would continue. The refuge would continue to survey, maintain habitats, and limit disturbance to threatened and endangered species. The refuge would survey, monitor, and maintain habitat to benefit migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and landbirds. It would coordinate with other agencies to control aquatic weeds in the navigable waters. There would be incidental feral hog control as part of the deer hunting program. Forest management activities would maintain upland pine and bottomland hardwood habitats. The refuge would manage 450 acres of impoundments and 11,000 acres of freshwater marshes. Upland sheet flow restoration efforts would continue. Under this alternative, resource protection would not change. Limited archaeological surveys would be conducted as part of timber sales. The refuge would continue to increase safety at the main access railroad crossing and maintain the access road. The visitor services' program would not be expanded. Deer and feral hog hunting opportunities would be maintained at current levels. Turkey surveys would be conducted to determine population status. Fishing opportunities would be maintained. As part of wildlife and photography, the refuge would maintain an observation tower, interpretive trails, hiking trails, and a photo-blind. Horseback riding would continue on the Volusia Tract, and commercial guided boat tours would be conducted via special use permits. The refuge would conduct 15 environmental and interpretive programs annually. Friends group membership and volunteer levels would remain the same. Refuge administration would remain the same with the following six employees: refuge manager, biologist, fire specialist, engineering equipment operator, and forestry technician (2 career-seasonal employees). Under Alternative B, wildlife and habitat management would increase. The refuge would evaluate the expansion of impoundments to provide more habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. The refuge would limit public access to certain areas to decrease disturbance. It would intensively survey and monitor migratory birds. Manipulation of water levels in the impoundments would favor native plant species, and the refuge would focus exotic plant control to support migratory birds. Feral hog and coyote management would be the same as under Alternative A. Habitats would be restored to support migratory birds through prescribed fire and forest thinning. The refuge would work with partners to ensure water quality, quantity, minimum flows and levels, and natural hydrology to support migratory birds. The refuge would work to develop cooperative management agreements with the State for the navigable waters on the refuge. It would conduct a refuge boundary survey. Under Alternative B, resource protection would increase. Archaeological resources would be managed the same as under Alternative A. The refuge would evaluate the need to improve the access road. Alternative B would expand visitor services. Hunting and fishing opportunities would be increased, but the refuge would ensure that these activities do not impact migratory birds. The refuge would seasonally close key areas to the public to limit disturbance to migratory birds and eliminate horseback riding. It would incorporate migratory bird themes into commercial guided tour messages. The refuge would develop on- and off-site education and interpretive programs with messages focused on migratory birds and the minimization of human impacts. It would train staff, volunteers, teachers, and tour operators to incorporate interpretive themes into programs. Refuge administration would expand under Alternative B. In addition to the 6 positions listed under Alternative A, the following positions would be added for a total of 15 positions: Wildlife specialist (assistant refuge manager), office assistant, biologist, biological science technician (2), maintenance worker (2), law enforcement officer, and park ranger. Under Alternative C, management would focus on the needs of rare, threatened, and endangered species. More areas on the refuge would be seasonally closed to limit disturbance to priority species. Management of migratory birds would be decreased as the impoundment acreage would decline to support certain listed species. Exotic species control would benefit listed species. Upland and bottomland forest management would focus on the needs of listed species. The refuge would work with partners to conduct herpetological and fish surveys and to protect water resources to support listed species. Archaeological resources would be managed as under Alternative A. The refuge would evaluate the need to improve the access road. It would work with partners to protect wildlife crossing the railroad tracks. Under Alternative C, visitor services would be reduced. The refuge would ensure that hunting and fishing do not impact listed species. The refuge would seasonally close key areas to the public to limit disturbance to listed species and would eliminate horseback riding. It would incorporate listed species conservation themes into commercial guided tour messages. The refuge would develop on- and off-site education and interpretive programs with messages focused on listed species and the minimization of human impacts. It would train staff, volunteers, teachers, and tour operators to incorporate interpretive themes into programs. Friends and volunteer levels and efforts would be increased and focused on the needs of listed species. Refuge administration would expand under Alternative C. In addition to the 6 positions listed under Alternative A, the following positions would be added for a total of 18 positions: Wildlife specialist (assistant refuge manager), office assistant, biologist (2), biological science technicians (2), non-fire forestry technician, maintenance worker (2), law enforcement officer (2), and park ranger. Under Alternative D, the proposed alternative, wildlife and habitat diversity would be emphasized. This alternative would expand wildlife and habitat management efforts on the refuge. Some key areas would be seasonally closed to the public to limit disturbance to rare, threatened, and endangered species, as well as to protect vulnerable habitats. For migratory birds, the refuge would intensively survey, monitor, and manage the impoundments for multi-species use. Exotic species control efforts would be similar to Alternatives B and C in the level of effort but the focus would be on maintaining biodiversity. The refuge would work with the State to determine the impacts of coyotes. If feral hog control measures become necessary, trapping would be considered. Upland habitats would be managed for biodiversity. Herpetological and fish surveys and monitoring efforts would increase. The refuge would work with the State to develop appropriate cooperative management agreements for the navigable waters on the refuge. A refuge boundary survey would be conducted. The refuge would conduct a complete archaeological survey, and develop a regular patrol and enforcement program. With regards to the railroad, the refuge would work with partners to protect wildlife movement across the railroad tracks. It would evaluate the need to improve the road and determine alternative access routes onto the refuge. Visitor services would expand under this alternative but the refuge would ensure that hunting and fishing do not impact wildlife and habitat diversity. It would evaluate the potential for turkey hunting. It would continue to allow horseback riding on the Volusia Tract through special use permits. Biodiversity themes would be incorporated into commercial guided tour messages. The refuge would develop on- and off-site education and interpretive programs, with messages focused on biodiversity and the minimization of human impacts. The refuge would train staff, volunteers, teachers, and tour operators to incorporate interpretive themes into programs. It would increase Friends group and volunteer efforts to support wildlife and habitat diversity. As part of refuge administration, the refuge would include maintenance programs in support of biodiversity and biological integrity. In addition to the 6 positions listed under Alternative A, the following positions would be added for a total of 11 positions: Wildlife specialist (assistant refuge manager), biological science technician, maintenance worker, law enforcement officer, and park ranger. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Next Step After the comment period ends for the Draft CCP/EA, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a Final CCP and Finding of No Significant Impact. Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57. Dated: February 13, 2008. Cynthia K. Dohner, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-8760 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0072; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, PRT-069323 The applicant requests an amendment and renewal of their permit to authorize the export and re-export of captive-bred/captive hatched live specimens and the export of viable eggs of California condors ( *Gymnogyps californianus* ) originating in the United States, as well as the re-export of wild live specimens of condors originating in Mexico, to La Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Rescoursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), San Angel, Mexico, for re-introduction into the wild to enhance the survival of the species through completion of identified tasks and objectives mandated under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Condor Recovery Plan. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period. *Applicant:* Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, PRT-057398. The applicant requests an amendment and renewal of their permit to authorize the import of wild live specimens, viable and non-viable eggs, biological samples and salvaged materials of California condors ( *Gymnogyps californianus* ) originating in Mexico, as well as the re-import of captive-bred/captive hatched live specimens, viable and non-viable eggs, biological samples and salvaged materials of condors originating in the United States, to enhance the survival of the species through completion of identified tasks and objectives mandated under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Condor Recovery Plan. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period. *Applicant:* Memphis Zoo, Memphis, TN, PRT-052166. The applicant requests renewal of their permit for scientific research with two giant pandas ( *Ailuropoda melanoleuca* ) currently held under loan agreement with the Government of China and under the provisions of the USFWS Panda Policy. The proposed research will cover all aspects of behavior, reproductive physiology, genetics, nutrition, and animal health and is a continuation of activities currently in progress. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period. *Applicant:* Thomas J. Hammond, Oakland Twp., MI, PRT-175465. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one cheetah ( *Acinonyx jubatus* ) taken in Namibia, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Chattanooga Zoo, Chattanooga, TN, PRT-178755. The applicant requests a permit to import one captive-born male jaguar ( *Panthera onca* ) from Complejo Ecologico Municipal, Presidencia Roque Sa enz Pen a, Argentina, for the purpose of enhancement of survival of the species. Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete application or requests for a public hearing on this application should be submitted to the Director ( ADDRESSES above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* Jimmie R. Ryan, Alabaster, AL, PRT-179123. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: March 21, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-8765 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0080; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* Dallas World Aquarium, Dallas, TX, PRT-179127. The applicant requests a permit to export fifty seven female captive-born Orinoco crocodiles ( *Crocodylus intermedius* ) to Venezuela for the purpose of enhancement of the species through re-introduction into the wild and conservation education. *Applicant:* Zoological Society of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, PRT-174613. The applicant requests a permit to import one female jaguar ( *Panthera onca* ) from the Belize Zoo and Tropical Education Center, Belize City, Belize for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive propagation and conservation education. *Applicant:* Zoological Society of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, PRT-174614. The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from one female jaguar ( *Panthera onca* ) from the Belize Zoo and Tropical Education Center, Belize City, Belize, for medical evaluation prior to the jaguar's import, for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive propagation and conservation education. *Applicant:* Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, Cincinnati, OH, PRT-171630. On March 17, 2008, (73 FR 14266), we published a request by the applicant for a permit to import black-footed cats ( *Felis nigripes* ) from Cat Conservation Trust, Cradock, South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Subsequent to this publication, it was determined that the number of animals published to be imported was incorrect; the actual number of black-footed cats to be imported is three males and two females. Therefore, we are republishing this request with the correct quantity. *Applicant:* Thomas E. Ferry, Ponca, NE, PRT-177153. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Jay R. Bollinger, Wenatchee, WA, PRT-174402. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Thomas J. Hammond, Oakland Twp, MI, PRT-179304. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Leaha R. Wirth, Beavercreek, OR, PRT-178910. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* James R. Martell, Glenns Ferry, ID, PRT-179699. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* James W. Box, Bloomfield, IA, PRT-179716. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* William A. Ladd, Unalakleet, AK, PRT-179759. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: March 28, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-8766 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0089; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* Mark L. Pease, The Woodlands, TX, PRT-177238. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Kevin D. Smith, Melba, ID, PRT-176078. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* George D. Cook Jr., Inverness, FL, PRT-178714. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic Inc., Las Vegas, NV, PRT-170807. The applicant request a permit to export and re-import “Bosco” a captive-born male Bengal tiger ( *Panthera tigris tigris* ) to worldwide locations for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a three-year period and the import of any potential progeny born while overseas. Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* Jeffrey S. Berlew, Angola, IN, PRT-179904. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Darwin J. Vander Esch, Riggins, ID, PRT-180222. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Robert P. Remillard, Newport, NH, PRT-180229. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: April 4, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-8787 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Information Collection Request for the Adult Education Annual Report Form, OMB # 1076-0120, requires renewal. The current Adult Education Annual Report Form, with no appreciable changes, will be submitted after the comment period to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 350(c)(2)(A). The Department of the Interior is soliciting public comments on the renewal. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Kevin Skenandore, Acting Director, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Mail Stop 3609-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or hand deliver to room 3610 at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Neves, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-3609-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, 202-208-3601. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Information Collection Abstract The regulations under 25 CFR part 46, subpart A contain the program requirements that govern the Adult Education Program. The information collection is necessary to assess the need for adult education programs in accordance with 25 CFR 46.20, Program Requirements, and section 46.30, Records and Reporting Requirements. Information collected from the contractors will be used for administrative planning, setting long and short-term goals, and analyzing and monitoring the use of funds. This collection expires June 30, 2008. *Title of the Collection of Information:* Adult Education Program Annual Report Form. *OMB Control Number:* 1076-0120. *Type of Review:* Renewal of a currently approved information collection. *Brief Description of the Collection of Information:* The collection of information provides pertinent data concerning the adult education programs. Submission of this information is necessary to assess the need for adult education programs. The information is needed for the utilization and management of program resources to provide education opportunities for adult American Indians and Alaska Natives to complete high school requirements, and to gain new skills and knowledge for individual student self-enhancement. The Bureau of Indian Education and tribally controlled programs use the information collected with the annual report for fiscal accountability and appropriate direct services documentation. The results of the data are used for administrative planning. *Affected Entities:* Tribal adult education administrators. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 70. *Proposed Frequency of Responses:* Annually. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 280 hours (reporting 4 hours per response x 70 respondents = 280 hours). II. Request for Comments The Department of the Interior invites comments on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including the hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption 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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Burden* means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section, room 3610, during the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, Monday thru Friday except for legal holidays. If you wish to have your name and/or address withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your request according to the requirements of the law. All comments from organizations or representatives will be available for review. We may withhold comments from review for other reasons. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Dated: April 17, 2008. Sanjeev “Sonny” Bhagowalia, Chief Information Officer—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-8763 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-6W-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-920-09-1320-EL, WYW176107] Coal Lease Exploration License, WY AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Invitation for Coal Exploration License, Antelope Coal Co., WYW176107, Wyoming. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and to the regulations adopted as 43 CFR 3410, all interested parties are hereby invited to participate with Antelope Coal Co., a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in the following-described land in Converse and Campbell Counties, WY: T. 40 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming Sec. 18: Lots 5, 6, 10 through 20; Sec. 19: Lots 5 through 12; T. 40 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Converse County, Wyoming Sec. 1: Lots 5 through 20; Sec. 12: Lots 4 through 11; Sec. 13: Lots 9 through 16; Sec. 24: Lots 1 through 8; T. 41 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming Sec. 8: Lots 1, 2, 7, 8, 13 and 14, N 1/2 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 9: Lots 1 through 16; Sec. 10: Lots 3 through 6, 11 through 14; Sec. 17: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 16; Sec. 19: Lots 5, 6, 11, and 12; Sec. 20: Lots 1 through 8; Sec. 21: Lots 1 through 8; Sec. 28: Lots 3 through 6. Containing 5121.53 acres, more or less. DATES: Any party electing to participate in this exploration program must send written notice to both the Bureau of Land Management and Antelope Coal Co. as provided in the ADDRESSES section below, which must be received within 30 days after publication of this Notice of Invitation in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Copies of the exploration plan are available for review during normal business hours in the following offices (serialized under number WYW176107): Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003; and, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604. The written notice should be sent to the following addresses: Antelope Coal Co., c/o Rio Tinto Energy America, Attn: Tom Suchomel, Caller Box 3009, Gillette, WY 82717, and the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Julie Weaver, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the coal in the above-described land consists of unleased Federal coal within the Powder River Basin Known Coal Leasing Area. The purpose of the exploration program is to obtain supplemental geotechnical data from several previous drilling programs and to assist with the planning of future expansions of the mine. This notice of invitation will be published in *Douglas Budget* of Douglas, WY and *The News-Record* of Gillette, WY, once each week for two consecutive weeks beginning the week of April 28, 2008, and in the **Federal Register** . The foregoing is published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to 43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1). Dated: April 16, 2008. Larry Claypool, Acting Deputy State Director, Minerals and Lands. [FR Doc. E8-8751 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in *United States* v. *Sho-Deen, Inc., and Sho-Deen Construction Company, L.L.C.* , Case No. 07 C 2900, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 11, 2008. This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against the Defendants pursuant to Section 30 1(a) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for discharging dredged and fill material into Mill Creek without a permit. The proposed Consent Decree requires payment of a civil penalty, and payment for off-site mitigation. The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this notice. Please address comments to Kurt Lindland, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, 5th Floor, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and refer to *United States* v. *Sho-Deen, Inc., and Sho-Deen Construction Company, L.L.C.* , Case No. 07 C 2900, including the USAO # 2007V00571. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed on the World Wide Web at *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html* . Kurt N. Lindland, Assistant United States Attorney. [FR Doc. E8-8647 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—DVD Copy Control Association Notice is hereby given that, on March 17, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Audible Magic Corporation, Los Gatos, CA; Klipsch Group, Inc., Indianapolis, IN; Malata Group
(HK)Limited, North Point, HONG KONG—CHINA; and Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Tokyo, JAPAN have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Capgemini U.S. LLC, Irving, TX; Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsin chu, TAIWAN; Shenzhen Oriental Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and TechniSat Digital GmbH, Daun, GERMANY have withdrawn as parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727). The last notification was filed with the Department on December 18, 2007. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 28, 2008 (73 FR 4918). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-8629 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Open Devicenet Vendor Association, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on March 18, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), Open DeviceNet Vendor Association, Inc. (“ODVA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Power Electronics S.L., Valencia, SPAIN; Beijing Sevenstar Electronics, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; GE Multilin, Markham, Ontario, CANADA; Aerotech, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; Phoenix Digital Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ; Weed Instrument Co., Inc., Round Rock, TX; Nor-Cal Products, Inc., Yreka, CA; TPC Mechatronics Co., Ltd., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Cervis, Inc., Warrendale, PA; Meggitt Airdynamics, Inc., a Division of Whittaker Controls, Corona, CA; Toshiba Schneider Inverter Corporation, Mie-Pref, JAPAN; HONDA TSUSHIN KOGYO CO., LTD., Tokyo, JAPAN; and SensoPart Industriesensorik GmbH, Weiden, GERMANY have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., Johnson City, TN; Hitachi High-Tech Control Systems Corporation (Hitachi Naka Electronics Co. Ltd.), Ibaraki-ken, JAPAN; Nohken, Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; Lika Electronic SNC, Carre' (VI), ITALY; SensArray Corporation, Austin, TX; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Hyogo, JAPAN; Siemens PA PS, Grand Rapids, MI; Partlow, Gurnee, IL; and Redwood MicroSystems, Inc., Menlo Park, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture. In addition, the following members have changed their names: Kuroda Precision Industries, Ltd. to Kuroda Pneumatics Ltd., Kanagawa, JAPAN; Enercon-Nord Electronic GmbH to NORD Electronic DRIVESYSTEMS GmbH, Bargteheide DE, GERMANY; and Crouse-Hinds Molded Products to Cooper Interconnect, Division of Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LaGrange, NC. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 15, 1996 (61 FR 6039). The last notification was filed with the Department on November 14, 2007. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74331). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-8622 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on March 21, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, IBM, Somers, NY; Lifetime, New York, NY; Secure Path Technology, Los Angeles, CA; Video Communications Inc., Springfield, MA; and Rick Turbeville, Waynesboro, VA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, DG FastChannel, Irving, TX; Joanneum Research, Graz, AUSTRIA; and MESoft, Inc., Los Angeles, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127). The last notification was filed with the Department on December 18, 2007. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3755). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-8628 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request April 17, 2008. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title:* Producer Price Index Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0100. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6,400. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 12,800. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The Producer Price Index (PPI), one of the Nation's leading economic indicators, is used as a measure of price movements, as an indicator of inflationary trends, for inventory valuation, and as a measure of purchasing power of the dollar at the primary market level. It also is used for market and economic research and as a basis for escalation in long-term contracts and purchase agreements. The purpose of the PPI collection is to accumulate data for the ongoing monthly publication of the PPI family of indexes. For addition information, see related notice published at 73 FR 15 on January 23, 2008. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8703 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Notice of Public Hearing To Collect Information To Assist in the Development of the List of Goods From Countries Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of public hearing to collect information to assist in the development of a list of goods from countries produced by child labor or forced labor in violation of international standards; request for submission of testimony. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (“DOL”) will hold a public hearing for the purpose of gathering factual information regarding the use of child labor and forced labor worldwide in the production of goods at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2008. The hearing will take place in the Auditorium of the Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC 20210, and will be open to the public. This hearing is conducted pursuant to section 105(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (“TVPRA of 2005”), Public Law 109-164 (2006), and as set forth in the Notice of Procedural Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of the List of Goods From Countries Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (“Guidelines”), 72 FR 73374 (December 27, 2007). All members of the public attending the hearing must register by May 14 in order to facilitate building security. DOL is now accepting requests from all interested parties to provide oral and/or written testimony and/or exhibits at the hearing. Each presentation will be limited to 10 minutes and must be submitted in writing to the Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking by May 7. The Department is not able to provide financial assistance to those wishing to travel to attend the hearing. Those unable to attend the hearing are invited to submit written testimony. Please refer to the DATES , FURTHER INFORMATION , and “Scope of Interest” sections of this Notice for additional instructions on registration, notification, and submission requirements. The DOL Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (“Office”) is currently developing a list of goods (“the List”) from countries that the Office has reason to believe are produced by child labor or forced labor in violation of international standards. DOL is required to develop and make available to the public the List pursuant to the TVPRA of 2005. Information provided at the hearing will be considered by the Office in developing the List. Testimony should be confined to the specific topic of the use of child labor and forced labor in the production of goods internationally, as well as information on government, industry, or third-party actions and initiatives to address these problems. The Office is particularly interested in information tending to demonstrate the presence or absence of a significant incidence of child labor or forced labor in the production of a particular good. DATES: The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 28, 2008. Parties who intend to present testimony at the hearing must notify DOL of their intention to appear, in writing, by 5 p.m., April 30. Presenters will be required to submit four written copies of their full testimony in English and all documentary evidence and/or exhibits to the Office by 5 p.m., May 7. Those attending but not presenting at the hearing must register by May 14. The record will be kept open for additional written testimony until 5 p.m., June 11, 2008. Information received after that date may not be taken into consideration in developing the initial List, but will be considered by the Office as the List is maintained and updated in the future. *To Give Notice of Intention To Appear, Submit Written Testimony, or for Further Information, Contact:* Charita Castro, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor at
(202)693-4843 (this is not a toll-free number). Written testimony and documentary evidence may be submitted by the following methods: • *Facsimile (fax):* Permitted for submissions of 10 pages or fewer. ILAB/Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking at 202-693-4830. • *Mail, Express Delivery, Hand Delivery, and Messenger Service:* Charita Castro/Leyla Strotkamp at U.S. Department of Labor, ILAB/Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-5317, Washington, DC 20210. • *E-mail: ilab-tvpra@dol.gov.* Note that security-related problems may result in significant delays in receiving materials by mail. *To Register To Attend the Hearing, Contact:* Leyla Strotkamp, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking, Bureau of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor at
(202)693-4813 or *Strotkamp.Leyla@dol.gov.* Please provide Ms. Strotkamp with attendees' contact information, including name, organization, address, phone number, and e-mail address. *Opportunity To Appear:* The hearing is open to the public, and all interested parties are welcome to attend. However, only a party who files a complete notice of intention to appear will be able to present at the hearing. The presiding official reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise keep the hearing focused. *Special Accommodations:* Persons who wish to request any of the following accommodations should contact Ms. Strotkamp by April 30: a presentation that exceeds 10 minutes; technical assistance for a presentation; submission of exhibits or other physical evidence for the record; or accommodation of a disability. For presentations that exceed 10 minutes and/or include the submission of evidence, ILAB will review each submission and determine if it warrants the additional time requested. If ILAB believes the requested additional time is excessive, it will allocate an appropriate amount of time to the presentation, and notify the participant before the hearing. ILAB may limit to 10 minutes the presentation of any participant who fails to comply substantially with these procedural requirements; ILAB may request any participant to return for additional questioning at a later time. *Scope of Interest:* DOL requests information that is current and directly addresses the nature and extent of child labor or forced labor in the production of goods, or the nature and extent of actions and initiatives to combat child labor and forced labor. Governments that have ratified International Labor Organization (“ILO”) Convention 138 (Minimum Age), Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labor), Convention 29 (Forced Labor) and/or Convention 105 (Abolition of Forced Labor) may wish to submit relevant copies of their responses to any Observations or Direct Requests by the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Exhibits submitted may include studies, reports, statistics, new articles, electronic media, or other sources, as set forth in section “Information Requested on Child Labor and Forced Labor” of 72 FR 73374 (December 27, 2007). Submitters of oral or written testimony should take into consideration the “Sources of Information and Factors Considered in the Development and Maintenance of the List” (Section A of the Procedural Guidelines), as well as the definitions of child labor and forced labor contained in Section C of the Guidelines. Refer to 72 FR 73374 (December 27, 2007). Where applicable, testimony providing factual information should indicate its source or sources, and copies of the source material should be provided. If primary sources are utilized, such as research studies, interviews, direct observations, or other sources of quantitative or qualitative data, details on the research or data-gathering methodology should be provided. Written testimony, and written copies of oral testimony, should be submitted to the addresses and by the deadlines set forth above. Submissions made via fax, mail, express delivery, hand delivery, or messenger service should clearly identify the person filing the submission and should be signed and dated. Submissions made via mail, express delivery, hand delivery, or messenger service should include an original plus three copies of all materials and attachments. If possible, submitters should also provide copies of such materials and attachments on a CD-ROM or similar electronic media. Note that security-related screening may result in significant delays in receiving comments and other written materials submitted by regular mail. Government classified information will not be accepted. The Office may request that classified information brought to its attention be declassified. Submissions containing confidential or personal information may be redacted by the Office before being made available to the public, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Official Record of this Public Hearing, including statements submitted for the record, will be published and made available to the public on the DOL Web site. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105(b)(1) of the TVPRA of 2005, Public Law 109-164 (2006), directed the Secretary of Labor, acting through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, to “carry out additional activities to monitor and combat forced labor and child labor in foreign countries.” Section 105(b)(2) of the TVPRA, 22 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), listed these activities as:
(A)Monitor the use of forced labor and child labor in violation of international standards;
(B)Provide information regarding trafficking in persons for the purpose of forced labor to the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking of the Department of State for inclusion in [the] trafficking in persons report required by section 110(b) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7107(b));
(C)Develop and make available to the public a list of goods from countries that the Bureau of International Labor Affairs has reason to believe are produced by forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards;
(D)Work with persons who are involved in the production of goods on the list described in subparagraph
(C)to create a standard set of practices that will reduce the likelihood that such persons will produce goods using the labor described in such subparagraph; and
(E)Consult with other departments and agencies of the United States Government to reduce forced labor and child labor internationally and ensure that products made by forced labor and child labor in violation of international standards are not imported into the United States. The Office carries out the DOL mandates in the TVPRA. The Guidelines provide the framework for ILAB's implementation of the TVPRA mandate, and establish procedures for the submission and review of information and the process for developing and maintaining the List. In addition to the Office's efforts under the TVPRA, the Office conducts and publishes research on child labor and forced labor worldwide. The Office consults such sources as DOL's *Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor;* the Department of State's annual *Country Reports on Human Rights Practices* and *Trafficking in Persons Report;* reports by governmental, non-governmental, and international organizations; and reports by academic and research institutions and other sources. The Office will evaluate all information received according to the processes outlined in the published Guidelines, 72 FR 73374 (December 27, 2007). Goods that meet the criteria outlined in the Guidelines will be placed on an initial List, and published in the **Federal Register** and on the DOL Web site. DOL intends to maintain and update the List over time, through its own research, interagency consultations, and additional public submissions of information. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of April, 2008. Charlotte M. Ponticelli, Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-8709 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; PTE 86-128 ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 86-128 for certain transactions involving employee benefit plans and securities broker-dealers. A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments regarding the collection of information. Send comments to Mr. G. Christopher Cosby, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
(202)693-8410 Fax:
(202)219-4745 (These are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 86-128 permits persons who serve as fiduciaries for employee benefit plans to effect or execute securities transactions on behalf of employee benefit plans. The exemption also allows sponsors of pooled separate accounts and other pooled investment funds to use their affiliates to effect or execute securities transactions for such accounts in order to recapture brokerage commissions for benefit of employee benefit plans whose assets are maintained in pooled separate accounts managed by the insurance companies. This exemption provides relief from certain prohibitions in section 406(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and from the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and
(b)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) by reason of Code section 4975(c)(1)(E) or (F). In order to insure that the exemption is not abused, that the rights of participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that the exemption's conditions are being complied with, the Department has included in the exemption five information collection requirements. The first requirement is written authorization executed in advance by an independent fiduciary of the plan whose assets are involved in the transaction with the broker-fiduciary. The second requirement is, within three months of the authorization, the broker-fiduciary furnish the independent fiduciary with any reasonably available information necessary for the independent fiduciary to determine whether an authorization should be made. The information must include a copy of the exemption, a form for termination, and a description of the broker-fiduciary's brokerage placement practices. The third requirement is that the broker-fiduciary must provide a termination form to the independent fiduciary annually so that the independent fiduciary may terminate the authorization without penalty to the plan; failure to return the form constitutes continuing authorization. The fourth requirement is for the broker-fiduciary to report all transactions to the independent fiduciary, either by confirmation slips or through quarterly reports. The fifth requirement calls for the broker-fiduciary to provide an annual summary of the transactions. The annual summary must contain all security transaction-related charges incurred by the plan, the brokerage placement practices, and a portfolio turnover ratio. II. Review Focus The Department is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department is requesting an extension of the currently approved ICR pertaining to Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 86-128 for certain transactions involving employee benefit plans and securities broker-dealers. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time. *Agency:* Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* PTE 86-128 for Certain Transactions Involving Employee Benefit Plans and Securities Broker-Dealers. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *OMB Numbers:* 1210-0059. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Total Respondents:* 4,200. *Total Responses:* 284,000. *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly; Annually. *Total Annual Burden:* 93,530 hours. *Total Annual Cost (Operating & Maintenance):* $183,550. Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 16, 2008. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. E8-8701 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,858] Household Utilities, Inc., Kiel, WI; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated April 7, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on March 5, 2008. The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15218). The determination was based on the Department's findings that sales and production of industrial parts, medical carts and medical cabinets increased in 2007 as compared to 2006 and no shift in production to a foreign source occurred. The request for reconsideration alleges that sales and production decreased in January, 2008 and customers of the subject firm shifted production abroad. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and will investigate the period of time as defined by the petitioner which is under the relevant period of the investigation. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8781 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than May 5, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than May 5, 2008. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2008. Erin FitzGerald, Acting Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 4/7/08 and 4/11/08] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 63139 Valspar—Furniture Sales Group & Int'l Color Design Center
(Comp)High Point, NC 04/07/08 04/04/08 63140 IntriCon Tibbetts Corporation
(Comp)Camden, ME 04/07/08 04/01/08 63141 GE Consumer and Industrial, GEA BPO-LLC
(IBEW)Bloomington, IN 04/07/08 04/03/08 63142 Kimball Electronics Tampa, Inc.
(Comp)Tampa, FL 04/07/08 04/07/08 63143 Powermate Corporation (State) Kearney, NE 04/07/08 04/04/08 63144 Teletech@Home, Inc. (State) Englewood, CO 04/07/08 04/04/08 63145 Jarden Plastic Solutions
(Comp)Tupper Lake, NY 04/07/08 04/04/08 63146 Perry Marketing Corporation
(Comp)Frisco, TX 04/07/08 04/04/08 63147 The Cutting Company, Inc. (18014) Bath, PA 04/07/08 04/04/08 63148 Rosy Production, Inc.
(Wkrs)Brooklyn, NY 04/07/08 03/03/08 63149 Astro Air
(Comp)Jacksonville, TX 04/08/08 03/05/08 63150 Enercon
(Comp)Gray, ME 04/08/08 04/07/08 63151 Kretz Lumber Company, Inc.
(Comp)Antigo, WI 04/08/08 04/07/08 63152 Troy, LLC
(USW)Harrisville, WV 04/08/08 04/07/08 63153 General Electric Company Gicero Cal-Rod Plant
(Comp)Cicero, IL 04/08/08 04/01/08 63154 Advantage Printing
(Comp)Hickory, NC 04/08/08 04/07/08 63155 Amphenol-TCS
(Comp)Nashua, NH 04/08/08 03/03/08 63156 Temic Automotive of North America (NA), Inc.
(Comp)Elma, NY 04/08/08 04/07/08 63157 MEMC Electronic Materials (State) St. Peters, MO 04/08/08 04/04/08 63158 Silver City Lumber, Inc.
(Comp)Three Forks, MT 04/08/08 04/02/08 63159 Ametek, Floorcare and Specialty Motors
(Comp)Kent, OH 04/08/08 04/07/08 63160 Vesuvius Buffalo
(USW)Buffalo, NY 04/08/08 04/03/08 63161 Elrae Industries, Inc.
(Comp)Alden, NY 04/08/08 03/27/08 63162 Whirlpool Corporation
(Wkrs)Cleveland, TN 04/09/08 04/01/08 63163 Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
(Comp)Bristol, RI 04/09/08 04/08/08 63164 SB Acquisition, LLC (State) Fryeburg, ME 04/09/08 04/08/08 63165 Maco Steel
(Wkrs)Belmont, MI 04/09/08 03/27/08 63166 Westminster Ceramics (State) Bakersfield, CA 04/09/08 04/08/08 63167 Russell Corporation
(Comp)Alexander City, AL 04/09/08 04/02/08 63168 Akrion SCP Services
(Comp)Boise, ID 04/09/08 04/08/08 63169 Ford Batavia/Sharonville
(UAW)Batavia, OH 04/10/08 04/09/08 63170 General Electric (State) Plainville, CT 04/10/08 04/07/08 63171 Wesley Mancini, Ltd
(Wkrs)Charlotte, NC 04/10/08 04/09/08 63172 Mueller Company
(USW)Decatur, IL 04/10/08 04/09/08 63173 Parker Hannifin Corporation
(Comp)Lebanon, TN 04/10/08 04/08/08 63174 Harvey Industries
(Wkrs)Wabash, IN 04/10/08 04/09/08 63175 R. Klein Jewelry Company
(Comp)Rockville Centre, NY 04/10/08 04/09/08 63176 Masonite International Corporation
(Comp)Mobile, AL 04/11/08 04/07/08 63177 Ryerson Steel
(Wkrs)Chicago, IL 04/11/08 04/08/08 63178 Pre-Press/PMG
(Wkrs)Plymouth, MA 04/11/08 04/08/08 [FR Doc. E8-8774 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,393] American Axle & Manufacturing, Buffalo Gear and Axle Facility, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Henkel Corporation, Buffalo, NY; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 21, 2007, applicable to workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Buffalo Gear and Axle Facility, Buffalo, New York. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69710). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of rear axle and steering linkage assemblies. New information shows that leased workers of Henkel Corporation were employed on-site at the Buffalo, New York location of American Axle & Manufacturing, Buffalo Gear and Axle Facility. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Henkel Corporation working on-site at the Buffalo, New York location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at American Axle & Manufacturing, Buffalo Gear and Axle Facility, Buffalo, New York who were adversely-impacted by a shift in production of rear axle and steering linkage assemblies to Canada and Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,393 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Buffalo Gear and Axle Facility, including on-site leased workers from Henkel Corporation, Buffalo, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 18, 2006, through November 21, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8776 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,619; TA-W-62,619A] OEM/Erie, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Career Concepts Staffing Services Erie, PA; Including an Employee in Support of OEM/Erie, Inc., Erie, PA Operating Out of Madision Heights, MI: Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on March 3, 2008, applicable to workers of OEM/Erie, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Career Concepts Staffing Services, Erie, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15217). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that a worker separation has occurred involving an employee in support of the Erie, Pennsylvania facility of OEM/Erie, Inc. operating out of Madison Heights, Michigan. Mr. Edward Conger provided engineering functions supporting the production of plastic trim automotive parts that was produced at the Erie, Pennsylvania facility of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee in support of the Erie, Pennsylvania facility operating out of Madison Heights, Michigan. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of OEM/Erie, Inc., Erie, Pennsylvania who were adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,619 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of OEM/Erie, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Career Concepts Staffing Services, Erie, Pennsylvania (TA-W-62,619) including an employee in support of OEM/Erie, Inc., Erie, Pennsylvania operating out of Madison Heights, Michigan (TA-W-62,619A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 13, 2006, through March 3, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8779 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of *April 7 through April 11, 2008.* In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-63,133; Mitch Murch's Maintenance Management, Working on-site at Briggs & Stratton Corp., Rolla, MO: January 25, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,755; G4 Products, LLC, Formerly known as Geiger Manufactured Products Group, Lewiston, ME: January 17, 2007.* *TA-W-62,933; A.H. Schreiber Company, Inc., Gordon Garment Div., Atwork & Bright Services, Bristol, VA: March 28, 2008.* *TA-W-63,100; Chillicothe Paper, Inc., A Subsidiary of Newpage Corporation, Chillicothe, OH: April 1, 2007.* *TA-W-63,112; Wolverine Finance, LLC, Wolverine Tube, including workers residing in Alabama, Ardmore, TN: March 31, 2007.* *TA-W-63,122; Chromcraft Revington, Inc., Formerly known as Peters Revington Furniture, Delphi, IN: April 2, 2007.* *TA-W-62,936; Bradford Dyeing Association, Inc., Bradford, RI: February 28, 2007.* *TA-W-63,089; Garment Technology, Inc., Signum, LLC, Gaffney, SC: March 27, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,956; General Mills, Inc., Old El Paso Meals Division, Poplar, WI: March 3, 2007.* *TA-W-62,960; Russell Corporation, Spalding/Huff Sports Division, Sussex, WI: April 22, 2008.* *TA-W-62,984; Saint-Gobain Sekurit, on-site leased workers of HCS Resource, Shelby Township, MI: March 5, 2007.* *TA-W-62,996; Vanity Fair Brands, LP, New York Office, New York, NY: March 10, 2007.* *TA-W-62,996A; Vanity Fair Brands, LP, Alpharetta, GA: March 10, 2007.* *TA-W-63,043; Grammer Industries, Inc., A Subsidiary of Grammer AG, Automotive Division, on-site leased workers of Corestaff Services, Piedmont, SC: March 20, 2007.* *TA-W-63,043A; Grammer Industries, Inc., A Subsidiary of Grammer AG, Sales and Engineering Office, on-site leased workers of Westaff, Troy, MI: March 20, 2007.* *TA-W-63,086; K-Industries, USA, LLC, Riviera Beach, FL: March 27, 2007.* *TA-W-63,114; Colgate-Palmolive, on-site workers of Adecco, Jeffersonville, IN: March 24, 2008.* *TA-W-63,118; ARC Automotive, Inc., A Subsidiary of Sequa Corporation, Knoxville, TN: April 1, 2007.* *TA-W-63,006; Air Products and Chemicals, Polyurethane Chemicals Division, Paulsboro, NJ: March 17, 2007.* *TA-W-63,028; Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., on-site leased workers of Staffsource, Inc., Greenwood, SC: February 19, 2007.* *TA-W-63,135; Leica Geosystems HDS, LLC, Leica Geosystems, Inc., Bus. Unit, Aerotek, San Ramon, CA: April 2, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,915; Furniture Makers Supply Company, Lexington, NC: February 21, 2007.* *TA-W-62,916; Lexington Abrasive Belts, Subsidiary of Furniture Makers Supply Co., Lexington, NC: February 21, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-63,133; Mitch Murch's Maintenance Management, Working on-site at Briggs & Stratton Corp., Rolla, MO:* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-63,009; RSA, The Security Division of EMC, A Subsidiary of EMC, Bedford, MA.* *TA-W-63,094; J J's Mae, Inc., dba Rainbeau, San Francisco, CA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *None.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-62,908; U.S. Timber Company, Baker City, OR.* *TA-W-62,995; RSDC of Michigan, LLC, Holt, MI.* *TA-W-63,030; Daisy Outdoor Products, Neosho, MO.* *TA-W-63,010; Rotor Coaters International, leased workers of Trillium Staffing and Poch Staffing, Saginaw, MI.* *TA-W-63,101; Modern Textile, Inc., Oakville, CT.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-62,706; TJD Fabrications, Inc., Plattsburgh, NY.* *TA-W-62,989; Rexel, Inc., Branch 3210/Division Office, Rocky Mountain Division, Denver, CO.* *TA-W-63,054; Skynet Satellite Corporation, Formerly known as Loral Skynet Corp., A Subsidiary of Telesat, Hawley, PA.* *TA-W-63,061; Springs Global, US, Inc., Spring Direct Division, Lancaster, SC.* *TA-W-63,075; Russound, Also know as Folded Metal Products, Inc., Newmarket, NH.* *TA-W-63,095; Western Union Financial Services, Inc., Bridgeton, MO.* *TA-W-63,103; HD Supply, Inc., Plumbing and HVAC Division, Columbus, GA.* The investigation revealed that criteria of section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of *April 7 through April 11, 2008* . Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: April 17, 2008. Erin Fitzgerald, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8775 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,752] Dynamerica Manufacturing, LLC, Muncie, IN; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On April 1, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19896). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that criteria I.B. and II.B. have not been met. There were no plant sales or production declines nor was there as shift in production from the subject firm abroad. In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated that he did not have exact knowledge of the subject firm's sales or production, but alleged that “DynAmerica was and still is struggling financially” and provided a history of the declining employment at the subject firm. On reconsideration, the Department contacted a company official to address these allegations. The official confirmed the accuracy of the statements released by the subject firm in the initial investigation regarding sales and production at Dynamerica Manufacturing LLC, Muncie, Indiana. Furthermore, the company official provided additional financial documentation supporting the facts that sales and production at the subject firm increased from 2006 to 2007. The petitioner further stated that the subject firm acquired a facility in Mexico and alleged that production has been shifted from Muncie facility to Mexico. In particular, the petitioner alleged, that the subject firm “shipped presses and multislides to Mexico and the dies to make parts that they were running at DynAmerica.” The company official stated that Dynamerica Manufacturing LLC manufactures metal stampings in the plant in Mexico. The official emphasized that metal stampings manufactured in Mexico are not like or directly competitive with automotive safety components manufactured at Muncie plant. Furthermore, the company official stated that there was no shift in production of automotive safety components from Dynamerica Manufacturing LLC, Muncie, Indiana to Mexico in 2006 and 2007. The machinery mentioned by the petitioner in the request for reconsideration were purchased by Dynamerica specifically for its Mexican facility. The documentation shows that this machinery was shipped to Muncie plant for maintenance, safety and fit of tooling prior to being shipped to Mexico. “Once the tool was debugged in the press, the tool and press was shipped Mexico.” The official stated that the reason for the workers separations is related to a domestic shift in plant production. The investigation on reconsideration revealed that sales and production and the subject firm increased from 2006 to 2007 and that there was no shift in production abroad of articles like or directly competitive with the products manufactured by workers of the subject firm. Conclusion After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Dynamerica Manufacturing, LLC, Muncie, Indiana. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of April, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8780 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,613] Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Fibre Company, Longview, WA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application dated March 28, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination signed on March 18, 2008, was based on the finding that imports of kraft paper did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and there was no shift in production of kraft paper from the subject firm abroad. The denial notice will soon be published in the **Federal Register** . In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding the subject firm's customers and also requested the Department of Labor conduct further analysis of imports that are like or directly competitive with kraft paper. The Department further reviewed responses of a sample customer survey conducted during the initial investigation. On further analysis, it has been determined that a significant number of customers increased their imports of kraft paper while decreasing their purchases from the subject firm from 2006 to 2007. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with kraft paper produced at Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., Longview Mill, Longview, Washington, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., Longview Mill, formerly Longview Fibre Company, Longview, Washington, engaged in production of kraft paper, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 27, 2006, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC., this 15th day of April, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8778 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,608] Precision Magnetics, Division of Arnold Magnetics Technology, Wayne, NJ; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On March 3, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 13013). The previous investigation initiated on December 27, 2007, resulted in a negative determination issued on February 4, 2008, was based on the finding that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not shift production of magnetic components and assemblies to a foreign country and did not import magnetic components and assemblies. The determination also stated that the workers' separations were attributed to a domestic shift of production. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 22, 2008 (73 FR 9836). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding production at the subject firm, imports and customers. Upon further investigation the Department requested a list of customers from the subject firm. New information revealed that Precision Magnetics, Division of Arnold Magnetic Technologies, Wayne, New Jersey supplies component parts for machined housings and covers for gearboxes and generators produced by the primary firm, and at least 20 percent of its production or sales is supplied to a manufacturer whose workers were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Precision Magnetics, Division of Arnold Magnetic Technologies, Wayne, New Jersey qualify as adversely affected secondary workers under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Precision Magnetics, Division of Arnold Magnetic Technologies, Wayne, New Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 26, 2006, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8777 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,078] Mavrick Metal Stamping Incorporated, Mancelona, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 27, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Mavrick Metal Stamping Incorporated, Mancelona, Michigan. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8782 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63, 201] Mpc Computers, LLC; La Vergne, TN; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 15, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at MPC Computers, LLC, La Vergne, Tennessee. The workers at the subject facility produce computers. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2008. Richard Church Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-8773 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P ** NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate): *Literature (application review):* May 15, 2008 in Room 714. A portion of this meeting, from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m., will be open to the public for a policy discussion. The remainder of the meeting, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m., will be closed. *Folk and Traditional Arts (application review):* May 29-30, 2008 in Room 716. A portion of this meeting, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on May 30th, will be open to the public for a policy discussion. The remainder of the meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 29th, and from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on May 30th, will be closed. The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 28, 2008, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven
(7)days prior to the meeting. Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691. Dated: April 16, 2008. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E8-8550 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)will hold a meeting on May 8-10, 2008, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59574). Thursday, May 8, 2008, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Selected Chapters of the SER Associated with ESBWR—Design Certification Application* (Open/Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy
(GEH)regarding selected Chapters of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report
(SER)with Open Items associated with the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) design certification application. Note: A portion of this session may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to GEH and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). *10:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Insights from PHEBUS-FP Tests* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the findings of the large-scale integral tests conducted in connection with the PHEBUS-FP Program and their implications on containment iodine behavior. *1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Draft NUREG/CR Report on PRA Methods for Digital Systems* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL)regarding draft NUREG/CR-XXX Report on Approaches for Using Traditional PRA Methods for Digital Systems and other related matters. *3:45 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting, as well as a proposed ACRS report responding to the EDO Response dated January 17, 2008, to the December 20, 2007, ACRS Report on the Susquehanna Power Uprate Application. Friday, May 9, 2008, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee* (Open)—Discussion of the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future ACRS meetings as well as discussion of matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. *9:15 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters. *9:30 a.m.-10 a.m.: Subcommittee Report* (Open)—The Committee will hear a report by and hold discussions with the Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal regarding the license renewal application for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant that was discussed during the Subcommittee meeting on May 7, 2008. *10:15 a.m.-12 p.m.: Preparation for Meeting with the Commission on June 5, 2008* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed topics for meeting with the Commission on June 5, 2008. *1:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports. Saturday, May 10, 2008, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACRS reports. *1 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Pub. L. 92-463, I have determined that it may be necessary to close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss and protect information classified as proprietary to GEH and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4). Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Girija S. Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-6855), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (ET). ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System
(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* (ACRS & ACNW Mtg. schedules/agendas). Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: April 17, 2008. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-8764 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-022 and 52-023] Progress Energy; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Combined License for Shearon Harris Units 2 and 3 By letter dated February 18, 2007, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC), submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)for a combined license
(COL)for two AP1000 advanced passive pressurized water reactors in accordance with the requirements contained in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” These reactors will be identified as Shearon Harris Units 2 and 3 and located near the town of New Hill, in Wake County, North Carolina. A notice of receipt and availability of this application was previously published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 66200) on March 11, 2008. The NRC staff has determined that PEC has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR part 52 that is acceptable for docketing. The docket numbers established for Units 2 and 3 are 52-022, and 52-023, respectively. The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the application. Docketing of the application does not preclude the NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. The Commission will conduct a hearing in accordance with Subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications,” of 10 CFR part 2 and will receive a report on the COL application from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, “Referral to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).” If the Commission finds that the COL application meets the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the Commission will issue a COL, in the form and containing conditions and limitations that the Commission finds appropriate and necessary. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission will also prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be included in a future **Federal Register** notice. Finally, the Commission will announce in a future **Federal Register** notice the opportunity to petition for leave to intervene in the hearing required for this application by 10 CFR 52.85. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day of April 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Serita Sanders, Lead Project Manager, AP1000 Projects Branch 2, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-8762 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57675; File No. SR-ISE-2008-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Limitation of Liability April 17, 2008. I. Introduction On March 5, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend ISE Rule 705, “Limitation of Liability,” to codify that the ISE may compensate Members for losses resulting directly from the malfunction of the ISE's physical equipment, devices, and/or programming. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 17, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57450 (March 7, 2008), 73 FR 14290. II. Description of the Proposal ISE Rule 705(a) provides, in general, that the Exchange is not liable for any losses arising from the use of the Exchange's facilities, systems, or equipment. The ISE notes, however, that, from a customer service perspective, the Exchange may compensate a Member for certain identified losses. Accordingly, the ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 705 to codify that the ISE may compensate Members, in both its stock and options markets, for losses resulting directly from the malfunction of the ISE's physical equipment, devices, and/or programming. 4 Under the proposal, the ISE's payments for the aggregate of all claims related to the use of the ISE on a single trading day would not exceed $250,000, and this amount would be allocated proportionally among all claims if the claims arising on a single trading day exceeded $250,000. 5 Claims for compensation under the rule must be submitted in writing no later than the opening of trading on the business day following the day on which the use of the Exchange gave rise to the claim. 6 Once in receipt of a claim, the ISE will verify that:
(i)A valid order was accepted into the Exchange's systems; and
(ii)an Exchange system failure occurred during the execution or handling of that order. 7 The ISE represents that the determination to compensate a Member will be made on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis without regard to the status of the Member, *i.e.* , whether the Member is a Primary Market Maker, a Competitive Market Maker, or an Electronic Access Member of the Exchange. 4 *See* ISE Rule 705(d). 5 *See* ISE Rule 705(d)(1) and (2). 6 *See* ISE Rule 705(d)(3). 7 *See* ISE Rule 705(d)(3). III. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires, in part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposal will amend ISE Rule 705 to codify the ISE's policies with respect to compensating Members for losses resulting directly from the malfunction of the ISE's physical equipment, devices, and/or programming. The Commission believes that the codification of these policies should add greater transparency to the ISE's rules. In addition, the Commission notes that the ISE's rule is similar to rules adopted by other exchanges. 10 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 10 *See, e.g.* , Nasdaq Rule 4626(b) and NYSE Arca Rules 14.2(b) and (c). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ISE-2008-15) is approved. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8735 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57679; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-45] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase Certain Taker Fees on the CBOE Stock Exchange April 17, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 15, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to modify its fees applicable to the CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.org/legal* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The CBSX Fees Schedule lists the fees applicable to trading on CBSX. Those fees include transaction fees, which are based on whether the executing member is “taking” liquidity or “making” liquidity in connection with the transaction. Takers have been charged at a rate of $0.0029 per share. This filing proposes to increase the taker transaction fee for intermarket sweep orders (“ISOs”) and immediate-or-cancel orders (“IOC orders”) that execute on CBSX to $0.0030 per share. The taker transaction fee for other order types would remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the proposed change will encourage order providers to take advantage of order handling features available on CBSX to non-IOC and non-ISO order types (such as the step-up flash process 5 ), while maintaining a fee structure that is competitive with the transaction fees charged by other exchanges. The proposed changes took effect on Wednesday, April 16, 2008. 5 *See* CBOE Rule 52.6. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder. 9 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2008-45 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-45. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-45 and should be submitted on or before May 14, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8784 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11217 and # 11218] Mississippi Disaster # MS-00017 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Mississippi dated 04/16/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 04/04/2008. EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/16/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/16/2008. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 01/16/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Newton, Rankin, Scott, Warren. Contiguous Counties: Mississippi: Claiborne, Clarke, Copiah, Hinds, Issaquena, Jasper, Kemper, Lauderdale, Leake, Madison, Neshoba, Simpson, Smith, Yazoo. Louisiana: East Carroll, Madison, Tensas. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.500 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.750 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11217 C and for economic injury is 11218 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Mississippi, Louisiana. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: April 16, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-8759 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection Activity, Request for Comments; Safety Improvements Report Accident Prevention Counselor Activity Reports AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve a current information collection. Accident Prevention Counselor Activity Reports are used by counselors to advise the FAA of Accident Prevention Program accomplishments. DATES: Please submit comments by June 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on
(202)267-9895, or by e-mail at: *Carla.Mauney@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)*Title:* Safety Improvements Report Accident Prevention Counselor Activity Reports. *Type of Request:* Revision of an approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0057. *Forms(s):* FAA Forms 8740-5 and 8740-6. *Affected Public:* A total of 4,792 Respondents. *Frequency:* The information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 6 minutes per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 2,042 hours annually. *Abstract:* Safety improvement reports are used by airmen to notify the FAA of hazards to flight operations. Accident Prevention Counselor Activity Reports are used by counselors to advise the FAA of Accident Prevention Program accomplishments. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200. [FR Doc. E8-8726 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)revision of a current information collection. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 6, 2007, vol. 72, no. 234, page 68947. The information collected is from airmen and is used to determine compliance with FAA regulations regarding second-in-command certification for the operation of aircraft. DATES: Please submit comments by May 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at *Carla.Mauney@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)*Title:* Certification: Second in Command
(SIC)Pilot Type Rating, Federal Regulation part 61. *Type of Request:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0693. *Forms(s):* 8710-1. *Affected Public:* An estimated 3,000 Respondents. *Frequency:* This information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 6 minutes per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 300 hours annually. *Abstract:* The information collected is from airmen and is used to determine compliance with FAA regulations regarding second-in-command certification for the operation of aircraft. ADDRESS: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to
(202)395-6974. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200. [FR Doc. E8-8729 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection Activity, Request for Comments; General Operating and Flight Rules—FAR 91 AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve a current information collection. Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Information is collected to determine compliance with Federal regulations. DATES: Please submit comments by June 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on
(202)267-9895, or by e-mail at: Carla.Mauney@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)*Title:* General Operating and Flight Rules—FAR 91. *Type of Request:* Extension without change of an approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0005. *Form(s):* There are no FAA forms associated with this collection. *Affected Public:* A total of 21,197 respondents. *Frequency:* The information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 11 hours per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 235,164 annually. *Abstract:* Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Information is collected to determine compliance with Federal regulations. Respondents are individual airmen, state or local governments, and businesses. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200. [FR Doc. E8-8731 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)revision of a current information collection. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 6, 2007, vol. 72, no. 234, pages 68947-68948. 14 CFR part 17 sets forth procedures for filing solicitation protests and contract claims in the FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. DATES: Please submit comments by May 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at *Carla.Mauney@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)*Title:* FAA Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact Disputes, 14 CFR Part 17. *Type of Request:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0632. *Forms(s):* There are no FAA forms associated with this collection. *Affected Public:* An estimated 40 respondents. *Frequency:* This information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 20.5 hours per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 820 hours annually. *Abstract:* 14 CFR part 17 sets forth procedures for filing solicitation protests and contract claims in the FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and legal information from protesters or claimants primarily through written submissions. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to
(202)395-6974. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200. [FR Doc. E8-8737 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at Barnes Municipal Airport, Westfield, MA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Request for public comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is requesting public comment on the City of Westfield, Massachusetts request to change a portion (14.99 acres) of Airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The property is located off of Falcon Drive in Westfield, Massachusetts and is identified by the City Assessors Office as Map 72R, Parcel 63. Upon disposition the property will be used for construction of a stormwater detention basin associated with the construction of a Target Distribution Center. The property was acquired under ADAP Project No. 7-25-0053-02. The disposition of proceeds from the disposal of airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 1999. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment by contacting Mr. Christopher Willenborg, Airport Manager at Barnes Municipal Airport, 110 Airport Road, Westfield, Massachusetts 01085-5331, Telephone 413-572-6275 or by contacting Donna R. Witte, Federal Aviation Administration, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-7624. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna R. Witte at the Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone 781-238-7624. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport property for aeronautical purposes. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on April 7, 2008. LaVerne F. Reid, Manager, Airports Division, New England Region. [FR Doc. E8-8738 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: City of Bakersfield, Kern County, CA AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)will be prepared for the proposed 24th Street Improvement Project in Kern County, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Hobbs, Senior Environmental Planner, Southern San Joaquin Valley Management Branch, Caltrans, 2015 E. Shields Avenue, Suite 100, Fresno, CA 93726, telephone: 559-243-8222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and the Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Caltrans as the delegated NEPA lead agency will prepare an EIS on a proposal to improve the existing 24th Street from State Route
(SR)99 to M Street in the City of Bakersfield. Analysis supporting the EIS will determine the type of facility necessary to meet the existing and future transportation needs along 24th Street. The proposed project would improve transportation operations along 24th Street and the Oak Street/24th Street intersection to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes and achieve acceptable levels of service within the corridor. The proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate existing traffic congestion and would result in improvement of local circulation. The proposed EIS would evaluate a set of three alternatives for the improvements to the Oak Street/24th Street intersection, a set of three alternatives for the proposed widening of 24th Street between Oak Street and D Street; and reconstruction of 23rd Street and 24th Street between D Street and M Street (approximately 1.7 miles). The No Action Alternative would be considered and result in no action being taken and no improvements would be made to the facility. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. A public scoping meeting will be held on April 30, 2008, from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at 1300 17th Street, Bakersfield, California, at the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Conference Rooms, 1st Floor, to provide additional opportunities for public input on the proposed project. A public hearing will be held. A Public Notice will be issued to announce the time and place of the hearing. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to Caltrans at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: April 16, 2008. Nancy Bobb, Director, State Programs. Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California. [FR Doc. E8-8795 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Cameron County, TX AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI). SUMMARY: FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)will be prepared for the proposed South Padre Island Second Access project in Cameron County, Texas. Publication of this Notice of Intent
(NOI)will serve to rescind a previous NOI published in July 2003 for the same project. The proposed project would link State Highway
(SH)100 on the mainland with Park Road
(PR)100 on South Padre Island. Currently, vehicular access to South Padre Island is limited to the Queen Isabella Memorial Causeway connecting the City of Port Isabel and the Town of South Padre Island. The proposed project would provide a second connection from the Texas mainland to South Padre Island in Cameron County, Texas. The proposed project would consist of construction predominantly on new right-of-way. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald E. Davis, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Texas Division, 300 East 8th Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone
(512)536-5960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA) is preparing an EIS for the proposed project which would involve the construction of a second access between SH 100 and PR 100. The amount of additional right-of-way to be acquired would depend upon the alternative selected and is not known at this time. The proposed project will consider several alternatives intended to satisfy the identified need and purpose. The current purpose is emergency evacuation, economic development, and to enhance safety and mobility. The alternatives will include the no-build alternative, Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management, mass transit, and roadway build alternatives. The roadway build alternatives may range from a two-lane to a six-lane road and may include limited access and non-limited access (arterial) designs, and toll and non-toll lanes. The EIS will evaluate potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project including, but not limited to, the following: Impacts or displacements to residents and businesses; detours; air and noise impacts from construction equipment, and operation of the project; water quality impacts from the construction area and from roadway storm water runoff; impacts to waters of the United States; impacts to historic and archeological resources; impacts to floodplains and irrigation canals; impacts to socio-economic resources (including environmental justice and limited English proficiency populations); indirect impacts; cumulative impacts; land use; regional and local economic interactions; vegetation including seagrass beds, dense thorn-scrub habitat, and riparian vegetation; wildlife; and aesthetic and visual resources. The project may require the following approvals: • Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)—Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Texas Historical Commission (THC), and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). • Navigable Waterway Permit—United States Coast Guard (USCG). • Section 404 Clean Water Act and Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act—US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). • Section 7 Endangered Species Act—US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). • Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act—NOAA Fisheries. • Section 402 Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). • Section 401 Water Quality Certification—Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). • Coastal Zone Management Program—General Land Office (GLO). If a build alternative advances from the DEIS and FEIS, the actual approvals required may change after field surveys are completed and an alternative is selected for the project through a ROD. A scoping meeting is an opportunity for participating agencies, cooperating agencies, and the public to be involved in defining the draft Need and Purpose for the proposed project, the range of alternatives for consideration in the draft EIS, and to comment on the methodologies to evaluate alternatives. The scoping meeting will also include a draft coordination plan and schedule for agency and public comment. A scoping meeting for the proposed project will be held in May 2008. In addition to any scoping meetings, a series of meetings to solicit public comment will be held during the environmental review process. They will be held during appropriate phases of the project development process. Public notices will be given stating the date, time, and location of the meeting or hearing and will be published in English as well as Spanish. Provision will be made for those with special communication needs, including translation if requested. Correspondence will be sent to federal, state, and local agencies, and to organizations and individuals who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the project, which will describe the proposed project and solicit comments. Comments and suggestions from all interested parties are invited to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed project are identified and addressed. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: April 17, 2008. Donald E. Davis, District Engineer, Austin, Texas. [FR Doc. E8-8783 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: I-70 Kansas City to St. Louis, MO AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a supplemental environmental impact statement
(EIS)will be prepared for the approved I-70 First and Second Tier environmental documents. The I-70 corridor for this Supplemental EIS is from the I-470 interchange in Kansas City to near the Lake St. Louis interchange in St. Louis. The project length is approximately 199 miles. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Peggy Casey, Environmental Projects Engineer, FHWA Division Office, 3220 West Edgewood, Suite H, Jefferson City, MO 65109, Telephone:
(573)636-7104; or Mr. Kevin Keith, Chief Engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone:
(573)751-2803. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), will prepare a Supplemental EIS to consider the impacts of dedicated truck lanes. This Supplemental EIS will include all necessary environmental, cultural resource, social and economic studies and will be coordinated closely with the public, city and county officials, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Planning Commissions, and resource agencies, as appropriate. The FHWA and MoDOT completed a First Tier EIS for the I-70 corridor in December, 2001. Subsequent to the First Tier, FHWA and MoDOT completed Second Tier environmental documents for seven sections of independent utility across the corridor. The Second Tier documents were completed in 2006. The First Tier evaluated the I-70 corridor in a general nature and recommended the improvement strategy of reconstructing and widening the existing facility. The Second Tier documents evaluated the environmental impacts of this strategy. The evaluations in these traditional environmental documents were based on the I-70 facility consisting of three 12-foot lanes in each direction with 12-foot shoulders along with a 124-foot grassed median. The only exceptions were in the urban areas approaching Kansas City, Columbia, through the Warrenton-Wright City-Wentzville area, and the area known as Mineola Hill. A study Management Group
(SMG)was assembled during the First Tier environmental process and was continued through the Second Tier process. Periodic SMG progress meetings were held during the First and Second Tier processes with resource agency personnel, including representatives from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri Department of Conservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Coordination with the SMG has been re-initiated for the Supplemental EIS process. This Supplemental EIS will begin with an evaluation and comparison of a truck-only strategy to the Preferred Strategy identified in the original EIS. If the evaluation process results in the recommendation of the truck-only strategy, several alternatives for implementing truck-only lanes will be developed and evaluated to determine which are reasonable and which, if any, are not. It is anticipated that truck-only alternatives will provide four lanes of travel in each direction—two lanes for truck and two lanes for general-purpose traffic. Also, there are several different methods for providing access at interchanges, ranging from simple merge options to more complicated truck/car interchanges. Interchange operations and their related impacts will be evaluated during the supplemental process. In addition, the Supplemental EIS will consider funding options for the project. The study will not recommend a specific option, but will look at the issues and challenges associated with applying these funding options. To date, a preliminary coordination/scoping meeting was held on January 29, 2008. Resource agencies from the reconvened SMG attended and participated in the meeting. It was agreed that existing coordinating and cooperating agency agreements already in place from the first and second tier processes will remain in effect for the supplemental process. Numerous opportunities for public input will be provided. The Improve I-70 project website will be updated to include the Supplemental EIS and there will be regular outreach to both the local and state-wide media. There will be two separate series of public meetings. Each will have meetings at three locations along the study corridor. Community advisory groups will be re-established in Columbia and Kingdom City. A meeting with Kingdom City was held on January 23, 2008. Opportunities for briefing/listening sessions with key statewide stakeholders or groups will be provided. A formal location public hearing will take place at three locations along the corridor, along with informal two-hour drop-in centers prior to public meetings and hearing. Public notice will be given announcing the time and place of all public meetings and the hearings. The Supplemental Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearings. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning this proposed action and the Supplemental EIS should be directed to the FHWA or MoDOT at the addresses provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: April 17, 2008. Peggy J. Casey, Environmental Project Engineer, Jefferson City. [FR Doc. E8-8761 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 678] Consummation of Rail Line Abandonments That Are Subject to Historic Preservation and Other Environmental Conditions AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT. ACTION: Statement of board policy. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board is issuing this policy statement to clarify when, under the agency's regulation at 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), a carrier may “consummate” abandonment and file a “notice of consummation” of the abandonment of a rail line where the Board has imposed conditions on its abandonment authorization in order to satisfy section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f, or the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* (NEPA). In cases where a condition is imposed under NHPA, a notice of consummation should not be filed for any part of the line until the historic review process is completed and the condition is removed. However, where a NHPA condition is needed only for a segment of the line or for a particular structure or structures, the railroad may request that the Board modify the condition to allow the railroad to salvage the portions of the line not affected by that condition. In contrast, a condition imposed under NEPA that is related to salvage activities is not a regulatory barrier to consummation of an abandonment. 1 A notice of consummation may be filed prior to satisfying such a salvage condition. However, filing a notice of consummation in that situation does not remove the condition, which must still be satisfied if and when salvage activities are conducted. If a property encumbered with salvage conditions changes ownership, the new owner must show that it agrees to abide by the salvage conditions at the time of conveyance by referencing the conditions in the instrument of conveyance, and providing a copy of the instrument of conveyance to the Board so that it can be filed in the pertinent abandonment proceeding. Additionally, railroads are cautioned to comply fully with section 106 of NHPA. 1 *See, e.g.* , Consummation notice filed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) on May 8, 2007, in *Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority—Abandonment Exemption—In Santa Clara and Alameda Counties, CA,* STB Docket No. AB-980X (notifying the Board of SCVTA's consummation of abandonment authority although it had not yet engaged in salvage activities and, therefore, had not yet complied with a salvage condition that the Board had attached to that authority). DATES: *Effective Date:* This policy statement is effective on April 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar,
(202)245-0395, [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is issuing this policy statement to address when a “notice of consummation”—required under the agency's regulation at 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2) to signify that a railroad intends to fully abandon a line and remove it from the national rail transportation system—may be filed in cases where the Board has imposed conditions on its abandonment authorization to satisfy section 106 of NHPA or to satisfy NEPA. This policy statement discusses each of these situations. A railroad may not “abandon” a rail line (i.e., be relieved of its common carrier obligation to provide rail service over that line and dispose of the property for non-rail use) without express permission from the Board. *Chi. & N. W. Transp. Co.* v. *Kalo Brick & Tile Co.,* 450 U.S. 311, 321-22 (1981). Under 49 U.S.C. 10903, the Board may affirmatively approve the abandonment of a line by determining that the public convenience and necessity require or permit the proposed abandonment. Alternatively, the agency may authorize abandonment by granting an exemption (individually or by class of rail lines) under 49 U.S.C. 10502. *See* 49 CFR 1152.50 and 1152.60. Under either procedure, the Board must meet its responsibilities under other Federal statutes, including NEPA, NHPA, and the National Trails System Act (Trails Act) at 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). To meet those responsibilities, the Board may need to impose conditions that limit or postpone the carrier's ability to exercise its abandonment authorization in whole or in part. The abandonment authority issued by the Board is permissive authority that the railroad may or may not decide to exercise. The agency retains jurisdiction over rail properties until abandonment authority has been consummated. *Hayfield N. R.R. Co.* v. *Chi. & N. W. Transp. Co.,* 467 U.S. 622, 633-34 (1984). Thus, it is important to be able to determine with certainty when abandonment authority is exercised. To exercise the authority and “consummate” an abandonment, a railroad must manifest a clear intent to abandon through its statements and actions, including discontinuing operations and “salvage” of the line (removing rails and other materials from the property). *See Birt* v. *STB* , 90 F.3d 580, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ( *Birt* ). Since 1997, under the Board regulation at 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), a railroad is required to file a “notice of consummation” with the agency within 1 year of the service date of the decision permitting abandonment to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and intends that the property be removed from the interstate rail network. Under the regulation, a notice of consummation is deemed conclusive on the issue of consummation if there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation (such as outstanding conditions, including Trails Act conditions that permit rail banking and interim trail use on railroad rights-of-way that would otherwise be abandoned). The regulation provides that if, after 1 year from the date of service of a decision permitting abandonment, consummation has not been effected by the railroad's filing of a notice of consummation, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon automatically expires (unless the Board has granted an extension). Once abandonment authority expires, a new proceeding would have to be instituted if the railroad wants to abandon the line. If, however, any legal or regulatory barrier to consummation exists at the end of the 1-year time period, the notice of consummation is due to be filed not later than 60 days after satisfaction, expiration, or removal of the legal or regulatory barrier. A railroad can file a request for an extension of time to file a notice, for good cause shown, if it does so sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the deadline to allow for timely processing. Until 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2) was adopted, there was no rigid formula for determining whether a railroad intended to exercise its permissive abandonment authority; rather, where there was an issue regarding consummation, the Board and the courts examined the facts on a case-by-case basis. *Birt* , 90 F.3d at 585-86; *Black* v. *ICC* , 762 F.2d 106, 112-13 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Nor was there any specific time period during which abandonment had to be consummated. The notice of consummation requirement was added to provide certainty and reduce litigation (primarily in cases involving the Trails Act) regarding whether a railroad's actions demonstrated its intent to abandon the line after an abandonment authorization had become effective. *Compare Becker* v. *STB* , 132 F.3d 60, 63 (D.C. Cir. 1997) *and Fritsch* v. *ICC* , 59 F.3d 248, 253 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (trail conditions could not be imposed because abandonments had already been consummated) *with Birt* , 90 F.3d at 588 (Board retained jurisdiction to impose a trail condition because railroad's actions did not show an intent to abandon). Recently, however, there has been some confusion regarding how the notice of consummation requirement applies to abandonment cases where conditions have been imposed to meet the Board's obligations under NHPA or NEPA. Because 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2) does not specifically address those situations, the Board is issuing this policy statement to clarify when a notice of consummation may be filed (if the railroad wishes to consummate the abandonment) in such cases. *Historic Review Conditions Under NHPA.* Where the historic review process is ongoing, the Board generally imposes a condition prohibiting the railroad from selling the line, altering any sites or structures on the line, or conducting salvage activities on the line until the historic review process is complete and the Board removes the condition. This maintains the status quo pending completion of the historic review process. In some instances, where it becomes apparent that mitigation (i.e., documentation of the historic resources) is necessary only for a portion of the line or for a particular structure or structures, the Board may modify the condition to allow salvage of the rest of the line. But otherwise, abandonment may not be consummated, and potentially historic property may not be disturbed for any part of the line, until either there is a formal final determination by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)(acting on behalf of the Board) that the project would have no adverse effect on historic resources or a Memorandum of Agreement is entered into that sets forth the appropriate mitigation (i.e., documentation) to satisfy section 106 and the historic review condition is removed. In some instances, railroads have sought to consummate the abandonment of part or all of a railroad line before the historic review process required by section 106 of NHPA is complete and the historic preservation condition imposed by the Board has been modified or removed. By this policy statement, the Board clarifies that, regardless of whether a section 106 condition applies to the entire line or is more limited, an historic preservation condition is a regulatory barrier to consummation. Therefore, a railroad should not file a notice of consummation seeking to remove the property from the Board's jurisdiction until the historic review process has been completed and the Board has removed the section 106 condition. The Board recognizes that in some cases there can be an overriding need for partial consummation and that partial consummation could be in the public interest (for example, where a portion of the line is needed to complete a highway project that is important to the community and the historic preservation condition applies only to another part of the line or to a structure that would not be disturbed by the highway project), or could further a legitimate private interest. Therefore, the Board's policy will be that, for good cause shown, a railroad may make a request to file a notice of consummation for a portion of the line prior to formal removal of a section 106 condition. The Board would then consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to waive its no-partial-consummation policy. The Board's primary concern in considering such requests will be to assure that partial consummation would not compromise satisfactory completion of the historic preservation process. In some cases railroads have taken actions affecting rail property without first seeking abandonment authority. When this occurs on inactive lines, we generally do not discover these actions until after the fact when the carrier seeks abandonment authority. Such actions are unlawful. Not only is the rail line unlawfully severed from the national transportation system when this occurs, but the Board's ability to carry out its obligations under NEPA and NHPA may then be adversely affected. The Board will continue to carry out its obligations under those statutes and will take whatever steps necessary to enforce compliance with them. Railroads that take such actions may find not only that obtaining abandonment authority is delayed, but that the Board will require historic preservation training for the railroad's staff members who are involved with abandonment projects and require the railroad to document the in-house measures that it will implement to prevent such actions from occurring in the future. Other possible actions the Board may take include restricting the railroad's future ability to employ expedited procedures to obtain abandonment authority, imposing a financial penalty, and seeking a legal remedy against the railroad in a court of law. *Other Environmental Conditions.* Most other environmental conditions imposed by the Board in abandonment cases relate to salvage activities. As discussed above, salvage activities can be one indicium of a railroad's intent to abandon. However, it is not necessary for a railroad to salvage a rail line in order to consummate abandonment authority. A railroad may decide not to salvage the line immediately upon being relieved of its service obligations, but rather to leave the track and ties in place. Therefore, the Board's policy is that a salvage condition, 2 unlike a section 106 condition, typically is not a regulatory barrier to the filing of a notice of consummation, and thus the existence of a salvage condition has no bearing on the consummation deadline. However, the salvage condition remains in place as a condition that attaches to the property and applies to salvage activities whenever they occur, even if salvage is conducted years later by a successor interest. Therefore, our policy will be to require any successor interest to agree to the condition by referencing the condition in the purchase contract or other instrument of conveyance, and by submitting a copy of that instrument of conveyance to the Board so that it can be filed in the docket of the relevant abandonment proceeding. 2 Salvage conditions are imposed on a case-by-case basis, but examples of conditions imposed in the past include permitting the railroad to salvage the line only during a particular time of year and requiring the railroad to provide notice to, or consult with, appropriate agencies prior to salvaging the line. This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action in this proceeding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action clarifies that conditions imposed by the Board under section 106 of NHPA are barriers to abandonment consummation, while NEPA salvage conditions are not. It also requires successor interests in properties encumbered with salvage conditions to reference the conditions in the instruments of conveyance, and to provide a copy of the instrument of conveyance to the Board so that it can be filed in the pertinent abandonment proceeding docket. These requirements will require little additional work and should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Decided: April 16, 2008. By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-8771 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “OCC Communications Questionnaire and Usability Test Survey.” The OCC is also giving notice that it has submitted the collection to OMB for review. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0226, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You may personally inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling
(202)874-5043. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0226, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary Gottlieb,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection: *Title:* OCC Communications Questionnaire. *OMB Control Number:* 1557-0226. *Description:* The OCC is proposing to continue to collect information from national banks regarding the quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of OCC communications products, such as booklets, issuances, and CDs, and expand its collection to include a usability test of its Web site. Case scenarios would be presented to users to test their ability to find information or complete a task on the Web site. Completed questionnaires will provide the OCC with information needed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of its paper and electronic communications products. The OCC would use the information to identify problems and to improve its service to national banks. *Type of Review:* Regular review. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Communications Questionnaire: 2,600. Usability Test: 300. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* Communications Questionnaire: 2,600. Usability Test: 300. *Estimated Frequency of Response:* 1 to 2 times annually. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* Communications Questionnaire: 10 minutes. Usability Test: 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 1,100 hours. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. On February 15, 2008, the OCC published a notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comments for 60 days on this information collection (73 FR 8931). No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: April 17, 2008. Michele Meyer, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. E8-8739 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Community Reinvestment Act Regulation—12 CFR 25.” The OCC is also giving notice that it has submitted the collection to OMB for review. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mail Stop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0160, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling
(202)874-5043. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0160, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary Gottlieb,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection: *Title:* Community Reinvestment Act Regulation—12 CFR part 25. *OMB Control Number:* 1557-0160. *Description:* The CRA requires the Federal banking agencies (Agencies) to assess the record of banks and savings associations in helping to meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations; and to take this record into account in evaluating applications for mergers, branches, and certain other corporate activities. The CRA statute requires the Agencies to issue regulations to carry out its purposes. Each Agency must provide written CRA evaluations of the institutions they supervise. The public portion of each written evaluation must present the agency's conclusions with respect to the CRA performance standards identified in its regulations; include the facts and data supporting those conclusions; and contain the institution's CRA rating and the basis for that rating. The data collection requirements in the CRA regulations are necessary for the Agencies to examine, assess, and assign a rating to an institution's CRA performance and to prepare the public section of the written CRA performance evaluation. *Type of Review:* Regular review. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,712. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 1,712. *Estimated Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 70.84 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 121,282 hours. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. On February 15, 2008, the OCC published a notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comments for 60 days on this information collection (73 FR 8930). The OCC received no comments. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the information to the OCC. Dated: April 17, 2008. Michele Meyer, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. E8-8740 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2002-32 and Revenue Procedure 2006-21 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2002-32, Waiver of 60-month Bar on Reconsolidation after Disaffiliation and Revenue Procedure 2006-21, Revenue Procedure to eliminate impediments to e-filing consolidated returns and reduce reporting requirements. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of revenue procedure should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 2002-32, Waiver of 60-month Bar on Reconsolidation after Disaffiliation; 2006-21, Revenue Procedure to eliminate impediments to e-filing consolidated returns and reduce reporting requirements. *OMB Number:* 1545-1784. *Revenue Procedure Number:* 2002-32 and 2006-21. *Abstract:* Revenue Procedure 2002-32 provides qualifying taxpayers with a waiver of the general rule of § 1504(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code barring corporations from filing consolidated returns as a member of a group of which it had been a member for 60 months following the year of disaffiliation; Revenue Procedure 2006-21 modifies Rev. Proc. 89-56, 1989-2 C.B. 643, Rev. Proc. 90-39, 1990-2 C.B. 365, and Rev. Proc. 2002-32, 2002-1 C.B. 959, to eliminate impediments to the electronic filing of Federal income tax returns (e-filing) and to reduce the reporting requirements in each of these revenue procedures. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the revenue procedure at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated number of respondents:* 20. The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 2 hours to 8 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 5 hours. *Estimated total annual reporting burden:* 100. *The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:* An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, OMB Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8818 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8050 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8050, Direct Deposit of Corporate Tax Refund. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins,
(202)622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Direct Deposit of Corporate Tax Refund. *OMB Number:* 1545-1762. *Form Number:* 8050. *Abstract:* Form 8050 is used to request that the IRS deposit a tax refund of ($1 million or more) directly into an account at any U.S. bank or other financial institution (such as a mutual fund, credit union, or brokerage firm) that accepts direct deposits. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, and individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 210,000. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 1 hour, 40 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 348,600. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 8, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8819 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1041-N AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1041-N U.S. Income Tax Return for Electing Alaska Native Settlement Trusts. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-6665, or through the internet at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* U.S. Income Tax Return for Electing Alaska Native Settlement Trusts. *OMB Number:* 1545-1776. *Form Number:* 1041-N. *Abstract:* An Alaska Native Settlement Trust
(ANST)may elect under section 646 to have the special income tax treatment of that section apply to the trust and its beneficiaries. This one-time election is made by filing Form 1041-N and the form is used by the ANST to report its income, etc., and to compute and pay any income tax. Form 1041-N is also used for the special information reporting requirements that apply to ANSTs. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 34 hrs. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 680. *The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:* An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 9, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8820 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8717 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8717, User Fee for Employee Plan Determination Letter Request. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown,
(202)622-6688, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224 or through the internet at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* User Fee for Employee Plan Determination Letter Request. *OMB Number:* 1545-1772. *Form Number:* 8717. *Abstract:* The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires payment of a “user fee” with each application for a determination letter. Because of this requirement, the Form 8717 was created to provide filers the means to make payment and indicate the type of request. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the forms at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 100,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours 21 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 438,000. *The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:* An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 11, 2008. Allan M. Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8821 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 9620. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 9620, Race and National Origin Identification. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown, at
(202)622-6688, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Race and National Origin Identification. *OMB Number:* 1545-1398. *Form Number:* 9620. *Abstract:* Form 9620 is an optically scannable form that is used to collect race and national origin data on all IRS employees and new hires. The form is a valuable tool in allowing the IRS to meet its diversity/EEO goals and as a component of its referral and tracking system and recruitment program. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 50,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 3 min. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,500. *The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:* An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 11, 2008. Allan M. Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8823 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 2678 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 2678, Employer Appointment of Agent. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-3634, or through the internet at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Employer Appointment of Agent. *OMB Number:* 1545-0748. *Form Number:* 2678. *Abstract:* Internal Revenue Code section 3504 authorizes a fiduciary, agent or other person to perform acts of an employer for purposes of employment taxes. Form 2678 is used to empower an agent with the responsibility and liability of collecting and paying the employment taxes including backup withholding and filing the appropriate tax return. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the burden previously approved by OMB at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, farms and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 95,200. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 3 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 47,600. *The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:* An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8824 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1099-A AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala,
(202)622-3634, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property. *OMB Number:* 1545-0877. *Form Number:* 1099-A. *Abstract:* Form 1099-A is used by persons who lend money in connection with a trade or business, and who acquire an interest in the property that is security for the loan or who have reason to know that the property has been abandoned, to report the acquisition or abandonment. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 386,356. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 min. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 61,817. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8825 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8718 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8718, User Fee for Exempt Organization Determination Letter Request. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala,
(202)622-3634, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* User Fee for Exempt Organization Determination Letter Request. *OMB Number:* 1545-1798. *Form Number:* Form 8718. *Abstract:* The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires payment of a “user fee” with each application for a determination letter. Because of this requirement, the Form 8718 was created to provide filers the means to enclose their payment and indicate what type of request they were making. *Current Actions:* There is no change in the paperwork burden previously approved by OMB. This form is being submitted for renewal purposes only. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200,000. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 16,667. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8826 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [TD 9087] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, TD 9087, Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations (§ 883(a) and (c)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Exclusions From Gross Income of Foreign Corporations. *OMB Number:* 1545-1677. *Regulation Project Number:* TD 9087. *Abstract:* This regulation contains rules implementing the portions of section 883(a) and
(c)of the Internal Revenue Code that relate to income derived by foreign corporations from the international operation of a ship or ships or aircraft. The rules provide, in general, that a foreign corporation organized in a qualified foreign country and engaged in the international operation of ships or aircraft shall exclude qualified income from gross income for purposes of United States Federal income taxation, provided that the corporation can satisfy certain ownership and related documentation requirements. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions and individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 16,400. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 1 hr., 27 min. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 23,900. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8834 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [TD 9270] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the existing final rulemaking, TD 9270, Reporting of Gross Proceeds Payment to Attorneys. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to, R. Joseph Durbala at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Reporting of Gross Proceeds Payment to Attorneys. *OMB Number:* 1545-1644. *Regulation Project Number:* TD 9270. *Abstract:* This document contains final regulations relating to the reporting of payments of gross proceeds to attorneys. The regulations reflect changes to the law made by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (1997 Act). The final regulations will affect attorneys who receive payments of gross proceeds on behalf of their clients and will affect certain payors (for example, defendants in lawsuits and their insurance companies and agents) that, in the course of their trades or businesses, make payments to these attorneys. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this proposed regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions and Federal, state, local or tribal governments. The burden is reflected in the burden of Form 1099-MISC. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8837 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [REG-209837-96] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, REG-209837-96, (TD 8742), Requirements Respecting the Adoption or Change of Accounting Method; Extensions of Time To Make Elections (§§ 301.9100-2 and 301.9100-3). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Requirements Respecting the Adoption or Change of Accounting Method; Extensions of Time to Make Elections. *OMB Number:* 1545-1488. *Regulation Project Number:* REG-209837-96. *Abstract:* This final regulation provides the procedures for requesting an extension of time to make certain elections, including changes in accounting method and accounting period. In addition, the regulation provides the standards that the IRS will use in determining whether to grant taxpayers extensions of time to make these elections. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, not-for-profit institutions, and farms. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 500. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 10 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5,000. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8840 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [EE-14-81] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking, EE-14-81, Deductions and Reductions In Earnings and Profits (or Accumulated Profits) With Respect to Certain Foreign Deferred Compensation Plans Maintained by Certain Foreign Corporations or by Foreign Branches of Domestic Corporations (§§ 1.404A-5, 1.404A-6 and 1.404A-7). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Deductions and Reductions In Earnings and Profits (or Accumulated Profits) With Respect to Certain Foreign Deferred Compensation Plans Maintained by Certain Foreign Corporations or by Foreign Branches of Domestic Corporations. *OMB Number:* 1545-1393. *Regulation Project Number:* EE-14-81. *Abstract:* The regulation provides guidance regarding the limitations on deductions and adjustments to earnings and profits (or accumulated profits) for certain foreign deferred compensation plans. The information required by the regulation will be used by the IRS to administer section 404A of the Internal Revenue Code and to accurately determine the correct deductions and reductions in earnings and profits attributable to deferred compensation plans maintained by foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches of domestic corporations. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,250. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 508 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 634,450. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8841 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [INTL-121-90, INTL-292-90, and INTL-361-89] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning existing final regulations INTL-121-90 (TD 8733), INTL-292-90 (TD 8305), and INTL-361-89 (TD 8292), Treaty-Based Return Positions (§§ 301.6114-1 and 301.7701(b)-7). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at
(202)622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Treaty-Based Return Positions. *OMB Number:* 1545-1126. Regulation Project Numbers: INTL-121-90, INTL-292-90, and INTL-361-89. *Abstract:* Regulation section 301.6114-1 sets forth reporting requirements under Code section 6114 relating to treaty-based return positions. Persons or entities subject to these reporting requirements must make the required disclosure on a statement attached to their return or be subject to a penalty. Regulation section 301.7701(b)-7(a)(4)(iv)(C) sets forth the reporting requirement for dual resident S corporation shareholders who claim treaty benefits as nonresidents of the U.S. Persons subject to this reporting requirement must enter into an agreement with the S corporation to withhold tax pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Commissioner. *Current Actions:* There is no change to these existing regulations. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, and business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6,020. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 1 hr. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 6,015. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 14, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8843 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [FI-28-96] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, FI-28-96 (TD 8801), Arbitrage Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds (§ 1.148-5). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown,
(202)622-6688, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Arbitrage Restrictions on tax-Exempt Bonds. *OMB Number:* 1545-1490. *Regulation Project Number: FI-28-96.* *Abstract:* This regulation provides guidance concerning the arbitrage restrictions applicable to tax-exempt bonds issued by state and local governments and contains rules regarding the use of proceeds of state and local bonds to acquire higher yielding investments. The regulation provides safe harbors for establishing the fair market value of all investments purchased for yield restricted defeasance escrows. Further, the regulation requires that issuers must retain certain records and information with the bond documents. The recordkeeping requirements are necessary for the IRS to determine that an issuer of tax-exempt bonds has not paid more than fair market value for nonpurpose investments under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* State, local, or tribal governments, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,400. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,425. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 11, 2008. Allan M. Hopkins, IRS, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8846 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [REG-107644-98 (Final)] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking, REG-107644-98 (Final), Dollar-Value LIFO Regulations; Inventory Price Index Computation Method. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at the Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, by phone at
(202)622-6665, or on the Internet at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Dollar-Value LIFO Regulations; Inventory Price Index Computation Method. *OMB Number:* 1545-1767. *Regulation Project Number:* REG-107644-98 (Final). *Abstract:* Section 1.472-2 of the Income Tax Regulations requires a taxpayer to file an application to use the LIFO inventory method. Section 1.472-3(a) requires an electing taxpayer to attach a statement with its federal income tax return for the year of election. This statement generally must be made on Form 970, Application To Use LIFO Inventory Method. Section 1.472-8(e)(5) of the existing regulations and section 1.472-8(e)(iv)(A) of the final regulations provide that a taxpayer may use the IPIC method only if its election appears on Form 970. In addition, § 1.472-8(e)(iii)(B)( *3* ) of the final regulations requires a taxpayer that elects to use a representative appropriate month to indicate its election on Form 970. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 8, 2008. Allan Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8854 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5309 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5309, Application for Determination of Employee Stock Ownership Plan. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-6665, or through the internet at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Application for Determination of Employee Stock Ownership Plan. *OMB Number:* 1545-0284. *Form Number:* 5309. *Abstract:* Internal Revenue Code section 404(a) allows employers an income tax deduction for contributions to their qualified deferred compensation plans. Form 5309 is used to request an IRS determination letter about whether the plan is qualified under Code section 409 or 4975(e)(7). *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 462. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 11 hrs, 28 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5300. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: March 26, 2008. Glenn Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8856 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Publication 3319 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Publication 3319, Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics—2002 Grant Application Package and Guidelines. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of publication should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown, at
(202)622-6688, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics—2005 Grant Application Package and Guidelines. *OMB Number:* 1545-1648. *Publication Number:* Publication 3319. *Abstract:* Publication 3319 outlines requirements of the IRS Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics
(LITC)program and provides instructions on how to apply for a LITC grant award. The IRS will review the information provided by applicants to determine whether to award grants for the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the publication at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Not for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 825. *Estimated Time For Program Sponsors:* 60 hours. *Estimated Time For Student and Program Participants:* 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 6,000. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 11, 2008. Allan M. Hopkins, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-8857 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P 73 79 Wednesday, April 23, 2008 CORRECTIONS Crystal DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Tribal Management Grant Program Correction In notice document E8-6429 beginning on page 17355, in the issue of Tuesday, April 1, 2008, make the following corrections: 1. On page 17356, in the first column, in the second paragraph of •Priority III, in the 19th line, “Section 111.3” should read “Section III.3”. 2. On the same page, in the second column, in the last paragraph of •Priority III, in the 4th line, “Priority H” should read “Priority II”. 3. On the same page, in the second column, in the same paragraph, in the 5th line, “Priority if” should read “Priority III”. 4. On page 17358, in the third column, at the 6th dashed item, in the second line, “Section H” should read “Section II”. 5. On page 17360, in the first column, in the first bulleted item, in the second line, “IRS” should read “IHS”. 6. On page 17361, in the third column, in the second line, “IEIS” should read “IHS”. 7. On page 17362, at the third bulleted item, in the second line, “IRS” should read “IHS”. 8. On the same page, in the second column, under the **VII. Agency Contact(s)** heading, in the 5th line, “announcement, Grant-related ” should read “announcement. Grant-related”. 9. On the same page, in the same column, in the 11th line, “submission, and” should read “submission and”. 10. On the same page, in the same column, in the 6th line from the bottom, “Gamesmanship” should read “Grantsmanship”. [FR Doc. Z8-6429 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D Aaron Siegel SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249 [Release 34-57526A; File No. S7-06-07] RIN 3235-AJ80 Proposed Rule Changes of Self-Regulatory Organizations Correction In rule document E8-8267 appearing on page 20782 in the issue of Thursday, April 17, 2008, make the following correction: In the third column, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION heading, in the 14th line, “May 8, 2008.” should read “[insert date 21 days from publication in the **Federal Register** ].””. [FR Doc. Z8-8267 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D 73 79 Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Proposed Rules Part II Department of Education 34 CFR Part 200 Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 200 RIN 1810-AB01 [Docket ID ED-2008-OESE-0003] Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing programs administered under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to clarify and strengthen current Title I regulations in the areas of assessment, accountability, public school choice, and supplemental educational services. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket is available on the site under “How To Use This Site.” • *Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery.* If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to Zollie Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W230, Washington, DC 20202-6132. **Privacy Note:** The Department's policy for comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All submissions will be posted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal without change, including personal identifiers and contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zollie Stevenson, Jr. at 202-260-1824. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing *Regulations.gov.* You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room 3W202, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Background The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which amended and reauthorized the ESEA, fundamentally changed the way States and local school districts help ensure that all students meet grade-level expectations or better. The law's core principles, particularly in Title I, guide the nation's conversation on education: annual assessments, publicly reported data, assistance for students and schools that fall behind, and accountability for results. NCLB's focus on accountability means that all States are now collecting better information to help schools, educators, policymakers, and parents make the best decisions for students. The Federal government has supported NCLB's implementation with significant resources: $165 billion in funding for NCLB from 2002 to 2008, including an increase of 40 percent in current dollars since 2001. This funding increase was accompanied by a philosophical change—that education is not just about how much we're spending, but about how well we're serving students. The 2007-2008 school year is the sixth full school year since the passage of NCLB. Throughout these six years, we carefully monitored the law's implementation. We gained valuable information from States, districts, and schools about how implementation of the law's requirements could be improved to ensure that all students reach proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. For example, in the first several years following the passage of NCLB, we received frequent requests from States to provide additional flexibility to measure the achievement of students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency
(LEP)for purposes of adequate yearly progress
(AYP)determinations. In response to these requests, the Department promulgated regulations to permit States to include in their AYP determinations the proficient and advanced scores of students with disabilities assessed based on alternate and modified academic achievement standards, as well as regulations that provide flexibility in the assessment of, and accountability for, recently arrived and former LEP students. During this time, States developed more sophisticated State data systems that now permit more accurate calculations of high school graduation rates, as well as the measurement of individual student academic growth from one year to the next. Higher-quality State accountability and assessment systems are in place thanks to the rigorous standards established under NCLB, the assessment and accountability peer review process, and most importantly, the hard work of the States. With these advancements, we believe that it is time to further amend and update our regulations to address certain key areas. Accordingly, these proposed regulations build on the advancements of State accountability and assessment systems, while incorporating key feedback from the field into an even clearer vision of what it takes to educate each and every one of our Nation's schoolchildren. We want to ensure that these regulations are as effective as possible in advancing the key principles of NCLB and, therefore, want to provide the opportunity for as much public input on the proposed regulations as possible. The public will have 60 days to comment on these proposed regulations. We also will provide opportunities for public input during regional public meetings; the dates, times, and locations of these meetings will be announced in a separate notice in the **Federal Register** . These proposed regulations would clarify and strengthen current regulations in the areas of assessment, accountability, supplemental educational services (SES), and public school choice. Specifically, the proposed regulations address the following key areas: • Assessing higher-order thinking skills through multiple measures. • Increasing subgroup accountability. • Ensuring that States and local educational agencies
(LEAs)include State data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP)on State and local report cards. • Establishing a uniform and accurate method that States must use to calculate high school graduation rates and setting high school graduation rate goals for AYP purposes. • Including disaggregated graduation rates in AYP calculations. • Permitting the inclusion of measures of individual student academic growth in a State's definition of AYP. • Creating a National Technical Advisory Council to advise the Secretary on complex issues related to State assessment and accountability systems. • Identifying schools and LEAs for improvement. • Ensuring that parents receive the information they need to exercise their public school choice and SES options. • Providing information to the public about participation in SES and public school choice. • Strengthening the requirements for schools in restructuring. • Requiring States to be more transparent about how they monitor LEAs' implementation of SES and strengthening the evidence that States must consider when approving and monitoring SES providers. • Using SES and school choice funds for parent outreach. • Maximizing use of funds for public school choice-related transportation and SES. Issuing regulations that strengthen Title I implementation in these areas will help bring about higher-quality assessments and stronger accountability for results, as well as provide parents with the information they need to make informed decisions about public school choice and SES. We look forward to receiving your comments on these proposed regulations to ensure that they accomplish our intended objectives. Significant Proposed Regulations We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect. Section 200.2—State Responsibilities for Assessment *Statute:* Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(vi) of the ESEA states that assessments must involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.2(b)(7) of the Title I regulations essentially repeats the statutory language. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.2(b)(7)(i) and
(ii)would clarify that measures of student academic achievement may include multiple types of questions that range in complexity and reflect the cognitive concepts and processes in the State content standards within a single assessment, as well as multiple assessments within a subject area. *Reasons:* There has been some misunderstanding among parents, teachers, and administrators that student achievement, for purposes of accountability determinations under Title I, must be based on a single assessment. This is not true; in fact, the law requires that a State's assessment include “multiple measures.” The proposed language would clarify what is meant by this concept, which is included in the law to ensure that a State's assessment system measure the full range of cognitive complexity in the State's academic content standards. Assessments, therefore, should include items that measure both higher order thinking skills ( *e.g.* , reasoning, synthesis, analysis) as well as knowledge and recall items to assess the depth and breadth of mastery of a particular content domain. In so doing, States may use a single test or several tests, or rely on one item format or several item formats (such as multiple choice or constructed response). Specifically, the proposed regulatory changes would clarify that, to meet the requirement to use multiple measures, a State may also choose to develop an assessment that relies on a combination of question formats, so long as the assessment reflects the degree of complexity of the cognitive concepts and processes in the State content standards. Multiple assessments to measure student achievement in a subject area may also be used in order to assess mastery of the breadth of a particular content domain. For example, some States use reading and writing assessments to calculate AYP in reading/language arts; other States use algebra and probability assessments to calculate AYP for mathematics. These clarifications are necessary to ensure that States clearly understand that their assessments may include single or multiple item formats, and that they may use multiple assessments to measure a specific content domain; they do not impose new requirements or require States to change their current assessment systems. Section 200.7—Disaggregation of Data *Statute:* Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA requires a State to define AYP so that its annual measurable objectives apply to all students as well as to specific subgroups of students —that is, economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities; and LEP students. Section 1111(b)(2)(I) of the ESEA makes clear that, for a school or LEA to make AYP, all students as well as each subgroup of students must meet or exceed the State's annual measurable objectives. Sections 1111(h)(1)(C) and 1111(h)(2) require that States and LEAs report on their report cards academic achievement data disaggregated by these same subgroups. Sections 1111(b)(2)(C) and 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, however, do not require a State to use such disaggregated data for determining AYP or reporting achievement data by subgroup if the number of students in a subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or if the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.7(a) prohibits a State from using disaggregated data for one or more subgroups to report achievement results or to identify schools in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring if the number of students in a subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information. Accordingly, § 200.7(a)(2) requires a State, using sound statistical methods, to determine and justify in its State Plan the minimum number of students sufficient to yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used ( *e.g.* , for determining AYP and for reporting subgroup achievement on State and LEA report cards). *Proposed Regulations:* In determining a minimum subgroup size, a State must balance achieving statistical reliability with maximizing inclusion of subgroups for accountability purposes (consistent with the statutory requirements to hold schools and LEAs accountable for the achievement of specific subgroups). Thus, proposed § 200.7(a)(2)(i)(B) would require a State, as it considers statistical reliability in setting its minimum subgroup size, to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all student subgroups are included, particularly at the school level, for purposes of making accountability decisions. Proposed § 200.7(a)(2)(ii) would require each State to revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook (which is part of the State Plan and is hereafter referred to as the Accountability Workbook) to include
(1)an explanation of how the State's minimum subgroup size meets proposed § 200.7(a)(2)(i);
(2)an explanation of how other components of the State's AYP definition, in addition to the State's minimum subgroup size, interact to affect the statistical reliability of the data and to ensure maximum inclusion of all students and student subgroups; and
(3)information on the number and percentage of students and student subgroups excluded from school-level accountability determinations. Proposed § 200.7(a)(2)(iii) would require each State to submit a revised Accountability Workbook that incorporates the information in proposed § 200.7(a)(2)(ii) for technical assistance and peer review no later than six months after the effective date of the regulation. *Reasons:* One of the most significant aspects of NCLB is its focus on holding schools and LEAs accountable for the achievement of specific student subgroups. Prior to NCLB, the overall achievement of students in a school often masked the low achievement of certain subgroups of students. To ensure that schools and LEAs are held accountable for the achievement of *all* their students, NCLB specifically requires that specified student subgroups must meet a State's annual measurable objectives and other academic indicators in order for a school or LEA to make AYP. NCLB also requires that States and LEAs report to the public on the achievement of their student subgroups. These disaggregation requirements are tempered by the need to ensure statistical reliability and privacy. Thus, sections 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) and 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA and current § 200.7 do not require accountability determinations or reporting by student subgroup if the size of the subgroup is too small to yield statistically reliable results or would reveal personally identifiable information about individual students. Current § 200.7(a)(1), therefore, requires a State to set a minimum subgroup size. A minimum subgroup size that is too small may yield unreliable data or reveal the identity of individual students. A minimum subgroup size, however, should be no larger than necessary to ensure the protection of privacy for individuals and to allow for statistically reliable results of the aggregate performance of the students who make up a subgroup. Moreover, the minimum subgroup size should be small enough to ensure the maximum inclusion of student subgroups in accountability decisions, consistent with the statutory requirements to disaggregate data. Some have argued that the heterogeneous nature of student populations requires a relatively large minimum subgroup size in order to reflect accurately the achievement of students in AYP determinations. We believe, however, that in many cases minimum subgroup sizes are larger than is necessary to ensure statistically reliable information; the result is that a large number of subgroups ( *e.g.* , low-income students, students in some racial or ethnic subgroups, LEP students, and students with disabilities) are excluded from school-level accountability determinations. Some estimates indicate that large minimum subgroup sizes result in nearly 2 million students (or about 1 in every 14 test scores) not being counted in NCLB subgroup accountability determinations at the school level and minority students are as much as seven times more likely than white students to have their scores excluded from school-level AYP subgroup calculations. 1 Under the current regulations and statute, in order for a school to be held accountable for a student subgroup, the number of students in that subgroup must exceed the State-established minimum subgroup size. Logically, the larger a State's minimum subgroup size, the less likely students will constitute an accountability subgroup at the school level and, thus, the school would not be held accountable for the performance of that subgroup. 1 Bass, F., Ziegler Dizon, N., & Feller, B. (2006, April 18). States Omit Minorities' School Scores. *Associated Press.* Setting minimum subgroup sizes that are statistically reliable has been a challenge for States. This challenge may stem from the fact that the concept of “statistical reliability” normally refers to the adequacy of a sample size to produce results with enough precision to meet the purpose of a study or report. The larger the sample drawn, the smaller the sampling error, variability, and confidence intervals around the estimate, and the higher the resulting precision of the estimate. However, under NCLB, all students in the tested grades are required to be assessed. Therefore, in the NCLB context, statistical reliability is obtained through the requirement to test the population of students while addressing concerns about instability of scores in small subgroups by using a minimum subgroup size. The use of a minimum subgroup size is not as much a “sampling” issue, as it is a protection to minimize the instability of scores that may occur when there are a small number of scores in a population. A minimum subgroup size mitigates the instability of scores and reduces the likelihood that an extreme score (high or low) will positively or negatively affect the overall score for the subgroup. There have been a number of developments in State assessment and accountability systems since NCLB was enacted and Accountability Workbooks were first approved. These developments have provided States the opportunity to be more precise, consistent, and transparent in the application of statistical reliability concepts under NCLB. Specifically, when NCLB was enacted, most States did not yet assess all students in grades three through eight and once in the high school grade span as required under NCLB. Now, virtually all students in all required grades are assessed; therefore, test scores generally reflect actual proficiency levels of schools rather than estimates based on the scores of students in one grade. States also have more options to accurately assess student learning, particularly for students with disabilities and LEP students. In addition, States have made tremendous advances in their abilities to gather and analyze student achievement data. These advances help States strike a more optimal balance between reasonable subgroup accountability and inclusion of the maximum number of students in school-level AYP determinations. For these reasons, the proposed regulations would require a State to ensure that its minimum subgroup size is large enough to produce statistically reliable information for all purposes for which disaggregated data are used ( *e.g.* , the use of data for reporting and making accountability decisions) yet limited to the smallest number possible in order to maximize the inclusion of student subgroups in accountability decisions. Furthermore, while the proposed regulations would not require a specific minimum subgroup size, they would require each State to revise its Accountability Workbook to explain how the State's current or proposed minimum subgroup size meets § 200.7(a)(2)(i). A State would also be required to explain how other elements of the State's AYP definition (such as the use of confidence intervals, performance indexes, and uniform averaging; the State's definition of full academic year), in concert with the State's minimum subgroup size, affect the statistical reliability of accountability determinations as well as impact the inclusion of all students and student subgroups in those determinations. States that propose large minimum subgroup sizes and include other components in their AYP definitions that result in the exclusion of large numbers of students or student subgroups would be subject to close scrutiny. The proposed regulations would also require each State to include in its Accountability Workbook data on the number and percentage of students and subgroups that are excluded from school-level accountability decisions as a result of the various components of the State's AYP definition. Making this information available through a State's Accountability Workbook should enable the public to gain a better understanding of how schools are being held accountable for the performance of their students and student subgroups. Finally, we are proposing that each State submit its Accountability Workbook, incorporating the information required by the proposed regulations, for technical assistance and peer review. We believe this would be an appropriate time to again have outside experts examine all the factors that bear on the statistical reliability of and inclusion of students in States' accountability systems. This will help the Department determine whether those systems are designed to produce reliable accountability determinations that maximize the inclusion of students and student subgroups, particularly in school-level accountability determinations. The Department will work with the National Technical Advisory Council that would be established under the proposed regulations to develop appropriate guidelines for the peer review. Section 200.11—Participation in NAEP *Statute:* Section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA requires States to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP)in reading and mathematics for the fourth and eighth grades as a condition of receiving Title I funds, and section 1112(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA requires districts, if selected, to participate in the NAEP. The general authorization for the NAEP requirements is outlined in section 411 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010). *Current Regulations:* Section 200.11 requires each State that receives funds under Title I, part A of the ESEA to participate in biennial State NAEP academic assessments of fourth and eighth grade reading and mathematics. It also requires an LEA that receives these funds to participate, if selected, in the State NAEP assessments. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.11(c) would require a State to report the most recent available academic achievement results from NAEP reading and mathematics assessments on the same public report card as it reports the results of its State assessments. It also would require an LEA to report the State NAEP assessment data on its report card. *Reasons:* The NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various grades and subject areas and, therefore, is an important source of information about student achievement. We propose to require States and LEAs to include information on NAEP scores on the same report cards that provide data on the performance of students on State assessments to ensure that NAEP data are easily accessible and available to parents and the public and to provide them with a tool to compare how students in a State are performing on the NAEP with student performance on State assessments. The Department recognizes that simple comparisons of student performance on the NAEP and State assessments cannot be made without some understanding of the key differences between the two assessments. For example, the NAEP is not aligned with State academic content and achievement standards and, therefore, does not necessarily reflect the curriculum and instruction to which students are exposed in the classroom. Therefore, the Department encourages States to provide information to parents on how to interpret the NAEP and State data. When the NAEP assessment information is presented in the appropriate context, the Department believes information on how students in a State are performing on State assessments compared to their performance on the NAEP will provide for greater transparency and give parents another tool to assess the education system in their State. Section 200.19—Other Academic Indicators *Statute:* Section 1111(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA outlines the specific components that must be included in a State's definition of AYP. Subparagraph
(vi)of that section specifically provides that a State's definition of AYP must include, in accordance with section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA, other academic indicators, and that the other academic indicator for high schools must be the graduation rate. (Graduation rate is generally defined in this section as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years.) Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) of the ESEA further provides that, if any group of students identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) 2 does not meet the annual measurable objectives in any particular year, the school, under what is commonly known as the “safe harbor” provision, is still considered to have made AYP for that year if the percentage of students in that group who did not meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessment for that year decreased by 10 percent from the previous year, and that group made progress on one or more of the other academic indicators. 2 These groups are:
(1)All public elementary and secondary school students,
(2)economically disadvantaged students,
(3)students from major racial and ethnic groups,
(4)students with disabilities, and
(5)students with limited English proficiency. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.19(a)(1) of the regulations reflects the statutory requirements and requires States to use graduation rate as the other academic indicator for determining AYP for high schools. Under the current regulations, States have some flexibility in calculating graduation rates. States also have flexibility in setting graduation rate goals or determining the improvement in graduation rates needed for a school or district to make AYP. Graduation rate is defined in the regulations as:
(1)the percentage of students, measured from the beginning of high school, who graduate from high school with a regular diploma (not including an alternative degree, such as a General Educational Development
(GED)credential or another type of certificate that is not fully aligned with the State's academic standards) in the standard number of years; or
(2)another definition, developed by the State and approved by the Secretary in the State Plan, that more accurately measures the rate of student graduation from high school with a regular diploma. In defining graduation rate, the State must avoid counting a dropout as a transfer. Section 200.19(d)(1) states that a State may, but is not required to, hold schools and LEAs accountable for achieving higher goals on its other academic indicators, including, with respect to high schools, the graduation rate, over the course of the timeline established by the State under § 200.15. Further, § 200.20 provides that, in order for a school or LEA to make AYP, each subgroup of students must meet or exceed the State's annual measurable objectives and the State's goals for the other academic indicator. Section 200.19(d)(2)(i) requires a State to disaggregate its other academic indicators by subgroup for purposes of reporting under section 1111(h) of the ESEA and for using the “safe harbor” provision to determine AYP. Section 200.19(d)(2)(ii) states that a State need not disaggregate those indicators for determining AYP except as provided for in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii) (which permits States to establish any other academic indicators in addition to those required under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi)). Proposed Regulations: We propose several changes to the regulations regarding the use of high school graduation rate as the other academic indicator for determining AYP for high schools. *Definition of graduation rate.* Consistent with the definition adopted by the National Governors Association (NGA), and agreed to by all 50 governors in 2005, proposed § 200.19(a)(1) would require States to use a uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates by defining graduation rate as the number of students who graduate in the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the “adjusted cohort” for that graduating class. The “adjusted cohort” is the group of students who entered the 9th grade four years earlier, and any students who transferred into or entered the cohort in grades 9 through 12, minus any students removed from the cohort. To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA would need to confirm that the student either enrolled in another educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma or is deceased. A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a GED program, or leaves school for any other reason would remain in the adjusted cohort for the purposes of calculating the graduation rate. Proposed § 200.19(a)(1)(i)(C)(2) would permit a State to propose, for approval by the Secretary, an alternate definition of “standard number of years” that would apply to limited categories of students who, under certain conditions, may take longer to graduate (as is the case, for example, for a small number of students with disabilities or students in “early college high schools” who earn an associate's degree along with a high school diploma). A State that does not have in effect a system to accurately track transfers for calculation of the graduation rate defined in proposed § 200.19(a)(1)(i) would be required to use the averaged freshman graduation rate
(AFGR)on a transitional basis. The AFGR would be defined as the number of high school students who graduate in the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students in the incoming freshman class four years earlier, which is estimated by averaging the enrollment of that freshman class with the enrollment of that class in eighth grade the prior year and in tenth grade the subsequent year. For any school or district that does not have an eighth grade, the AFGR would be estimated by averaging the enrollment of the freshman class with the enrollment of the tenth grade class in the subsequent year. The proposed regulations would not permit States to use the AFGR to calculate graduation rates after 2011-2012; after 2011-2012, all States would have to calculate graduation rates under proposed § 200.19(a)(1). *Graduation rate goals and continuous and substantial improvement measures.* Proposed § 200.19(d)(1) would provide two ways for States to determine whether their schools and LEAs meet the graduation rate component of AYP. Beginning in the 2008-2009 school year, in order for a high school or LEA to be considered to have met the other academic indicator for purposes of determining AYP, the school or LEA must either
(1)meet a graduation rate goal, established by the State and approved by the Secretary that represents the rate the State expects all high schools to achieve; or
(2)demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding that goal, as defined by the State and approved by the Secretary. *Disaggregation of graduation rates.* Proposed § 200.19(e)(1) would require each State, no later than the 2012-2013 school year, to calculate the graduation rate at the school, LEA, and State levels in the aggregate and disaggregated by the subgroups in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) for reporting under section 1111(h) of the ESEA and for determining AYP. Proposed § 200.19(e)(2)(i) and
(ii)would require a State, prior to the 2012-2013 school year, to disaggregate the graduation rate data at the school, LEA, and State levels for reporting purposes and for determining “safe harbor” and at the LEA and State levels for determining AYP. Table 1 shows the proposed disaggregation requirements for determining AYP and for reporting AYP determinations. Table 1.—Graduation Rate Disaggregation Requirements AFGR beginning school year 2008-2009 Determining AYP Reporting NGA no later than school year 2012-2013 Determining AYP Reporting School No (except when determining “safe harbor”) Yes Yes Yes. LEA Yes Yes Yes Yes. State Yes Yes Yes Yes. *Reasons:* There is an urgent need to improve America's high schools and ensure that all students graduate from high school ready for postsecondary instruction or the workforce. A uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates is needed to raise expectations and to hold schools, districts, and States accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate on time with a regular high school diploma. In addition, a uniform and accurate method of calculating high school graduation rates will improve our understanding of the scope and characteristics of those students dropping out of school or taking longer to graduate. Numerous reports and statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL)indicate the growing importance of a high school diploma. In its publication, *America's Dynamic Workforce,* DOL reported that 90 percent of the fastest-growing jobs require some form of postsecondary education. 3 There also are increasing gaps in the unemployment rate and earnings between college graduates and high school dropouts. In 2006, the unemployment rate for high school dropouts age 25 and older was over three times the rate for college graduates (6.8 percent compared to 2.0 percent, respectively) and over 1.5 times the rate of individuals who had only a high school diploma (6.8 percent compared to 4.3 percent, respectively). Moreover, what DOL refers to as the “education premium” is increasing—in 2006, college graduates with a bachelor's or higher degree had median weekly earnings nearly 2.5 times greater than the typical high school dropout. Furthermore, college graduates have experienced growth in real median weekly earnings since 1979, while high school dropouts have seen their real median weekly earnings decline by about 20 percent. 4 3 U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). *America's Dynamic Workforce.* Washington, DC: Author. Available at: *http://www.dol.gov/asp/media/reports/workforce2007/index.htm.* 4 *Id.* These statistics demonstrate the critical importance of having a high school diploma. Unfortunately, only about half of African American and Hispanic students graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma. 5 Additionally, 15 percent of high schools in the country are producing over half of our dropouts—and yet nearly forty percent of these schools are making AYP because of inaccurate graduation rate calculations and a lack of accountability for all students. 6 5 Belfanz, R., Legters, N., T.C. & Weber, L.M. (2007). Are NCLB's Measures, Incentives, and Improvement Strategies the Right One's for the Nation's Low-Performing High Schools? *American Educational Research Journal,* *44* (3), 559-593. 6 *Id.* Because the current regulations allow States latitude in determining how graduation rates are measured, the accuracy of State-calculated graduation rates varies considerably. Many States use some form of a “completer rate” (multiplication of dropout rates in each academic year) as their graduation rate. This rate has been shown to overestimate significantly high school graduation rates. The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES)calculated the AFGR for all States and compared the State-reported graduation rates to the AFGR. This analysis, published in the National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, shows that in some cases there is nearly a 30-point difference between a State's reported graduation rate and its AFGR. 7 7 Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, C. (2006). *National Assessment of Title I Interim Report to Congress: Volume I: Implementation of Title I.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Available at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disady/titlelinterimreport/voll.pdf.* The requirements States have established for determining whether a high school makes AYP with respect to its graduation rate also vary. One State, for example, has set its goal at 50 percent; another has set its goal at 95 percent. In addition, more than one-half of States accept any improvement or some established minimal improvement ( *e.g.* , 0.1 percent from the previous year) in their high school graduation rate to count as making AYP. In several States, a school can graduate less than half of its students, year after year, and still make AYP by graduating one more student with a regular high school diploma than it did in the previous year. The proposed regulations would revise current regulations to require the use of a uniform and accurate method of calculating high school graduation rates and would require schools and districts to either meet a State-established goal that has been approved by the Secretary or demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding that goal. These changes are intended to increase the transparency and accuracy of graduation rates and strengthen accountability for the achievement of high school students. Following is the rationale for each of these changes. *Definition of graduation rate.* A uniform and accurate method of calculating high school graduation rates is necessary in order to provide parents and the public with important information about the success of a school, district, and State in graduating students in the standard number of years and to ensure that AYP determinations are based on valid graduation rate calculations. There is now a broad consensus about how to define the graduation rate. In August 2006, NCES released a report synthesizing the recommendations of a panel of experts on graduation rate calculations. 8 The panel recommended that the standard graduation rate measure on-time completion of a regular diploma within four years and not include GED recipients or students without documentation of transferring to another educational program that terminates in the award of a regular high school diploma ( *e.g.* , documented through receipt of a transcript). Additionally, the NGA Task Force on High School Graduation Rate Data had as its lead recommendation that all States immediately adopt and begin taking steps to implement a standard four-year, adjusted cohort graduation rate, consistent with that proposed by the NCES panel (the “NGA rate”), which 50 governors agreed to adopt in 2005. 9 The proposed regulations offer a uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates that reflects this broad consensus in the field. 8 Seastrom, M., Chapman, C., Stillwell, R., McGrath, D., Peltola, P., Dinkes, R., & Xu, Z. (2006). *User's guide to Computing High School Graduation Rates.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 9 National Governors Association. (2006). *Graduation Counts:* *A Report of the National Governors Association Task Force on High School Graduation Rate Data.* Washington, DC: Author. To calculate the NGA rate, States need a system of documenting transfers as well as four years of data, or the equivalent of one full cohort. For States that do not yet have the ability to accurately track student transfers, NCES recommended using the AFGR as an *interim* measure. The AFGR estimates the effect of transfers into and out of a cohort of students and can be calculated with data currently available to States. It has been shown to be a reliable, accurate estimate of the high school graduation rate. The proposed regulations would provide time for States to transition to using the new definition of graduation rate. This transition period would allow all States sufficient time to develop a system for documenting transfers for one full cohort and subsequently to calculate the NGA rate. By 2012-2013, however, all States would be required to use the more rigorous definition of graduation rate in proposed § 200.19(a)(1). *Graduation rate goals and continuous and substantial improvement measures.* While some States only allow for schools to make AYP if a State-established goal is met, most States allow any improvement from the previous year or some established minimal improvement (ranging from 0.1 percent to 2.0 percent) for a school to demonstrate it has met AYP; one State simply requires schools to maintain the prior year's rate. Furthermore, many States have established low graduation rate goals ( *e.g.* , 50 percent) that are considered the threshold for AYP determinations—a school or LEA must meet that threshold in order to be considered to have made AYP and no improvement above that threshold is required. These methods of determining whether a school or LEA meets the graduation rate component of AYP represent exceptionally low expectations and demonstrate the need for States to establish graduation rate goals that are more rigorous. Accordingly, § 200.19(d) would require a State to establish a graduation rate goal that it expects all high schools to eventually achieve and to establish requirements for demonstrating continuous and substantial improvement toward meeting or exceeding that goal, in order to make AYP. Given the ever-increasing importance of a high school diploma, allowing schools and LEAs with unacceptably low rates of graduation to make AYP by simply maintaining the same low rate or minimally increasing the number of graduates from the previous year does not provide for appropriate and meaningful accountability. *Disaggregation of graduation rates.* When the current regulations were written in 2002, the Department believed that permitting States to use aggregate graduation rate data for the purpose of determining AYP while requiring disaggregation for reporting would be sufficient to ensure school accountability for the achievement of all groups of students and would avoid overburdening State accountability systems. Six years later, we now know that simply reporting disaggregated graduation rate data is not sufficient to ensure that graduation rates improve for all students. As previously highlighted, too many schools are graduating too few students and not being held accountable for improving their performance in this important area. Moreover, it is evident that there are significant disparities in high school outcomes. For example, data provided by NCES show significant gaps in subgroup AFGR graduation rates. Data from the 2004-2005 school year show the average AFGR for white students is 80.4 percent, whereas the average AFGR for Hispanic, black, and Native American/Alaska Native students is 64.2 percent, 60.3 percent, and 67.2 percent, respectively. 10 With these figures, it is clear that disaggregated graduation rate data should be used for purposes of determining whether a high school or LEA makes AYP. Similar to the importance of disaggregating assessment results to ensure that high performance by a particular group of students does not mask low performance by another group of students, schools need to be held accountable for the differences in high school graduation rates among various groups of students. 10 National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Averaged Freshman Graduation Rates for Public School Students, 2004-05. Unpublished data. For these reasons, the proposed regulations would require, by the 2012-2013 school year, all States to include disaggregated graduation rates in State-, district-, and school-level AYP decisions. The Department, however, recognizes that, while disaggregated AFGR results are valid at the State and district levels, there is less confidence in the validity of disaggregated AFGR results at the school level. Therefore, beginning with the effective date of this regulation, States would be required to use disaggregated results for reporting and determining AYP at the State and district levels, but would only be required to use school-level disaggregated results for reporting purposes and determining AYP under the “safe harbor” provision. Beginning in 2012-2013, when all States would have to use the NGA graduation rate, disaggregated results would also be required in school-level AYP determinations. Section 200.20—Making Adequate Yearly Progress *Statute:* Section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA sets out the requirements for calculating AYP, which is a measure of the percentage of students who are proficient in a school, LEA, and State. The AYP calculation method commonly referred to as a “status model” compares the achievement of one cohort of students against the test scores of the students in the previous year's class. Although Title I allows AYP to be determined using student progress with the “safe harbor” provision, the proficiency gains measured in that calculation do not look at individual student growth—it is still a cohort comparison. Currently, nine States are participating in a “growth model” pilot and are permitted to report their accountability results using measures of individual student growth that have been approved by the Department. North Carolina and Tennessee first used measures of individual student growth for the 2005-2006 school year; Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, and Iowa reported growth scores for the first time for the 2006-2007 school year. 11 11 Ohio has received conditional approval, but has not yet implemented its proposal due to delayed State legislative changes necessary for implementation. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.20 implements the statutory requirements for determining AYP. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.20(h) would establish the criteria that a State must meet in order for the Secretary to permit a State, under the waiver authority of section 9401 of the ESEA, to establish and implement policies for incorporating individual student academic progress into the State's definition of AYP. A State that desires to incorporate individual student academic growth into its definition of AYP would be required to—
(a)Set annual growth targets that—
(1)Lead to all students, by school year 2013-2014, meeting or exceeding the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments under § 200.2;
(2)Are based on meeting the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State's assessments under § 200.2 and are not based on individual student background characteristics; and
(3)Measure student achievement separately in mathematics and reading/language arts;
(b)Ensure that all students who are tested using the State's assessments under § 200.2 are included in the State's assessment and accountability systems;
(c)Hold all schools and LEAs accountable for the performance of all students and the student subgroups described in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii);
(d)Be based on State assessments that—
(1)Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading/language arts;
(2)Have been in use by the State for more than one year; and
(3)Have received full approval from the Secretary before the State determines AYP based on student academic growth;
(e)Track student progress through a State-developed data system;
(f)Include, as separate factors in determining whether schools are making AYP for a particular year—
(1)The rate of student participation in assessments; and
(2)Other academic indicators as described in § 200.19; and
(g)Describe how the proposed annual growth targets fit into a State's accountability system in a manner that ensures that the system is coherent and that incorporating individual student academic growth into a State's definition of AYP does not dilute accountability. With the additions proposed in these regulations, a State could permit its LEAs and schools to make AYP by meeting
(1)the State's proficiency targets,
(2)growth targets, or
(3)the “safe harbor” provision. A State's proposal to incorporate student academic growth in the State's definition of AYP will be peer reviewed under section 1111(e)(2) of the ESEA. *Reasons:* There is general consensus among teachers, administrators, researchers, and advocates that States should be permitted to include measures of individual student academic progress (that is, to use what is often described as a “growth model”) when determining whether a school or district is making AYP. When NCLB was signed into law in 2002, few States had the data capacity to calculate individual student academic progress. With all States now testing annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school coupled with improved data systems in many States, States have a greater capacity to measure individual student academic progress. The Department believes that allowing States to include accurate measures of individual student academic progress in AYP calculations will still hold schools accountable for the achievement of all students to State academic achievement standards, while providing schools and teachers with useful information on how their students are progressing towards grade-level proficiency, which can ultimately lead to better instruction. Under these proposed regulations and section 9401 of the ESEA, therefore, schools and LEAs in States that incorporate individual student academic growth into their definition of AYP would be held accountable for improving individual students' achievement from one school year to the next. We encourage States that decide to incorporate individual student growth into their accountability systems to include in their data systems a teacher identifier to help track student achievement and teacher performance by class assignment. While not a condition of incorporating individual student academic growth into a State's definition of AYP, inclusion of a teacher identifier will create a much richer set of data to guide school improvement efforts. Section 200.22—National Technical Advisory Council *Statute:* Section 1111(e) of the ESEA requires the Secretary to establish a peer review process to assist in the review of State Plans. *Current Regulations:* There are no current regulations related to this statutory requirement. *Proposed Regulations:* The proposed regulations in § 200.22 would require the establishment of a National Technical Advisory Council (National TAC) to advise the Secretary on key technical issues related to State standards, assessments, and accountability systems that are part of State plans. The National TAC would not replace the peer review panels the Department uses to evaluate State standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Rather, the National TAC would consider complex issues that affect all States, as well as issues that would benefit from discussions with experts in the field. For example, the National TAC could help create guidelines for how States should determine an appropriate minimum subgroup size, taking into consideration other elements of States' AYP definitions, as we have proposed in § 200.7. Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary would solicit nominations from the public for experts in the fields of assessment design and implementation, and the field of accountability to serve on the National TAC. The proposed regulations provide that, from these nominations, the Secretary would select 10 to 15 National TAC members. The National TAC could meet as a whole or in subcommittees. *Reasons:* The Department currently uses experts in the fields of assessment and accountability to review State standards, assessments, and accountability systems. During the course of reviewing State Plans, these experts, as well as States, have raised a number of complex issues ( *e.g.* , the appropriate use of confidence intervals and indexes, and the alignment of alternate assessments with alternate academic achievement standards). Advice from a National TAC consisting of experts with knowledge in the fields of educational standards, assessments, accountability systems, statistics, and psychometrics would help the Department address these complex and technical issues. Just as States have established State technical advisory committees to advise them on the development and implementation of their State standards, assessments, and accountability systems, the Department believes that regular access to a group of experts would benefit the Department, States, and, ultimately, students in ensuring that State standards and assessments are of the highest technical quality and that State accountability systems hold schools and districts accountable for the achievement of all students. Sections 200.32 and 200.50(d)(1)—Identification of Schools and LEAs for Improvement *Statute and Current Regulations:* Section 1116(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA and § 200.32(a)(1) require an LEA to identify a school for improvement if it does not make AYP, “as defined * * * under section 1111(b)(2),” for two consecutive years. Section 1116(c)(3) of the ESEA and § 200.50(d)(1) contain a similar requirement for identifying LEAs for improvement. Under section 1111(b)(2)(I) of the ESEA and § 200.20, a school or LEA makes AYP if:
(1)All students and each subgroup of students under § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) meet or exceed the State's separate annual measurable objectives
(AMOs)for reading/language arts and math,
(2)the school or LEA meets or exceeds the State's other academic indicators, and
(3)not less than 95 percent of all students and those in each subgroup identified in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) take the State's assessments. A school or LEA may also make AYP through the “safe harbor” provisions described previously in this notice. Under current policy, the Department permits the identification of schools and LEAs for improvement if the school or LEA did not make AYP because it did not meet the AMO in the same subject or academic indicator for two consecutive years. So, for example, if a school did not make AYP because it did not meet the AMO for math for two consecutive years, the school would be identified for improvement. On the other hand, if a school, in the first year, did not make AYP because it did not meet the AMO in math but met the AMO in reading/language arts, and then, in the second year, did not make AYP because it did not meet the AMO in reading/language arts but met the AMO in math, that school would not be identified for improvement. The Department, however, does not permit an LEA or a State to limit the identification of schools and LEAs for improvement to only those schools and LEAs that did not make AYP because the same subgroup did not meet the AMO in the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years. So, for example, if a school, in the first year, did not make AYP because the students with disabilities subgroup did not meet the AMO in math, and then, in the second year, the school did not make AYP because the LEP students subgroup did not meet the AMO in math, the LEA must identify that school for improvement. In this example, identification for improvement is based on not meeting the AMO in the same subject, math, not on whether the same subgroup did not meet the AMO. *Proposed Regulations:* We are proposing to codify the Department's current policy in §§ 200.32 and 200.50(d). Proposed § 200.32 would provide that, in identifying a school for improvement, an LEA may base identification on whether the school did not make AYP because it did not meet the AMO in the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years. The LEA may not, however, limit such identification to those schools that did not make AYP only because they did not meet the AMO in the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for the same subgroup under § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) for two consecutive years. Comparable changes with respect to the identification of LEAs for improvement would be made in proposed § 200.50(d)(1). *Reasons:* We are proposing to codify our current policy in order to establish clear parameters for LEAs and States to use when identifying schools and LEAs for improvement. We believe the current policy and proposed regulatory changes are consistent with section 1111(b)(2)'s emphasis on proficiency in separate subjects and requiring separate participation rates for math and reading/language arts assessments for purposes of determining AYP, as well as the absence of any similar authority for emphasizing subgroups. Section 1111(b)(2)(E) of the ESEA clearly acknowledges that student achievement in reading and math in a State may start at very different points and, when they do, different trajectories need to be established for each subject toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Similarly, section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA requires a State to set different AMOs in math and reading. Participation rates, likewise, must be calculated separately because a student could participate in one, both, or neither of the State's mathematics and reading/language arts assessments. Accordingly, it follows that a State may take into consideration in identifying a school or LEA for improvement the fact that the school or LEA did not meet its AMO in the same subject (including the participation rate for that subject) or meet the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years. There is no similar basis for identifying for improvement a school or LEA only when the same subgroup did not meet the AMO in the same subject or the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years. Although section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA requires a State to establish separate AMOs for each subject, it requires a State to apply those AMOs to each subgroup in determining whether a school or LEA makes AYP. In addition, section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) of the ESEA provides that, for a school or LEA to make AYP, “all students” and each subgroup must meet or exceed the AMOs. Based on these provisions, the ESEA does not authorize limiting the identification of a school or LEA for improvement to instances when the school or LEA did not make AYP for two consecutive years only because the same subgroup did not meet the AMO for the same subject or the same other academic indicator. Identifying a school or LEA in this manner would be inconsistent with the ESEA's accountability provisions, which require that each subgroup meet the State's AMOs in each subject each year. Section 200.37—Notice of Identification for Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring *Statute:* Section 1116(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA requires LEAs to identify for improvement any Title I school that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years. The identification must occur before the beginning of the school year following the school's failure to make AYP (section 1116(b)(1)(B)). Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires an LEA to promptly notify parents of students enrolled in a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and to provide them with information regarding what it means to be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, including an explanation of the parents' option to transfer their child to another public school or the option to obtain SES for the student. Section 1116(b)(1)(E) requires LEAs to provide students enrolled in a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring with the option to transfer to another school not later than the first day of the school year following such identification. Section 1116(e)(2)(A) requires LEAs with schools in the second year of improvement, in corrective action, or in restructuring to provide, at a minimum, annual notice to parents of the availability of SES, the identity of approved SES providers of those services that are within the LEA or whose services are reasonably available in neighboring LEAs, and a brief description of the services, qualifications, and demonstrated effectiveness of each of those providers. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.37(b)(4) and (b)(5) implement the statutory requirements for LEAs to provide notice to parents of public school choice and SES options, respectively. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.37(b)(4)(iv) would require that LEAs provide to parents an explanation of the available school choices sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 calendar days before, the start of the school year, so that parents have adequate time to exercise their choice option before the school year begins. Proposed § 200.37(b)(5)(ii)(C) would require that the annual notice of the availability of SES explain the benefits of receiving SES, in addition to the identity of approved providers of those services available within the LEA and a brief description of the services, qualifications and demonstrated effectiveness of the providers, as provided in current regulations. Proposed § 200.37(b)(5)(iii) would require this notice to be clear and concise and clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents under § 200.37. *Reasons:* The importance of notifying parents of their public school choice options in advance of the start of the school year is documented by findings from the National Assessment of Title I
(NATI)report (2007). In a survey of LEAs described in this report, those that notified parents about their public school choice options before the first day of school had higher participation rates in public school choice than LEAs that notified parents on or after the first day of school. Yet, only 29 percent of the LEAs that were required to offer public school choice notified parents before the beginning of the school year. Twenty-one percent notified parents at the start of the school year, and 49 percent notified parents after the start of the school year. 12 12 Stullich, S., Eisner, E., & McCrary, J. (2007). * National Assessment of Title I: Final Report, Volume I: Implementation. * Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. We know that transferring one's child to another school is an important decision for a parent to make and therefore, it is critical that LEAs provide parents as much advance notice as possible so that they have time to make informed decisions. We also know from the NATI report that parents are more likely to take advantage of their choice options if they are notified in advance of the school year. However, early parent notification may be constrained by several factors, including the time it takes for States to receive students' scores on the State's annual assessment and the time needed to determine whether a school has made AYP based on the students' test scores and the other components of the State's AYP definition ( *e.g.* , definition of full academic year, indexes, “safe harbor”). Further, the Department understands that it is in the best interest of students to have as much time in the school year as possible to learn the content before taking the State's annual assessment. The Department recognizes that the importance of giving parents the time they need to make decisions regarding their choice option must be balanced by these practical realities of making AYP determinations. Notifying parents as far in advance as possible, but no later than 14 days before the start of the school year, strikes a reasonable balance among these various timing and practical considerations. We also believe that by allowing more time for parents to consider their choice options, there will be greater interest and participation in public school choice. The NATI report also found that, in 2004-2005, 94 percent of LEAs reported sending parents written notification materials regarding SES options; however in a survey of eligible parents in eight urban school districts, only 53 percent of parents with a child eligible for SES said they had been notified. 13 Additionally, the NATI report found that the quality of LEAs' parent notification letters varied considerably. Specifically, the NATI report looked at 20 parent letters about SES and found that some were easy to read and described SES options in a positive manner, while others were confusing and incomplete, and discouraged the use of SES. 14 The proposed regulations regarding the SES notice would help ensure that LEAs promptly communicate to parents information on SES, and that parents are aware of their SES options and the benefits of those services. 13 *Id* . 14 *Id* . Section 200.39—Responsibilities Resulting From Identification for School Improvement *Statute:* Section 1116(b) of the ESEA states that an LEA must identify for school improvement any elementary or secondary school that fails, for two consecutive years, to make AYP. Specifically, LEAs with Title I schools identified for improvement are responsible for providing public school choice to eligible students (section 1116(b)(1)(E)), consulting with identified schools as they develop a school improvement plan (section 1116(b)(3)), and ensuring the provision of technical assistance as the school develops and implements the school improvement plan (section 1116(b)(4)). For Title I schools in their second year of improvement, the LEA must continue with these actions and, in addition, make SES available to eligible students. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.39 implements the statutory requirements regarding LEAs' responsibilities for Title I schools identified for improvement. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.39(c) would require LEAs to provide the public with information regarding the LEA's implementation of the public school choice and SES requirements, as soon as this information becomes available. LEAs would be required to prominently display the following information on the LEA's Web site: • Beginning with data from the 2007-2008 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in public school choice. • Beginning with data from the 2007-2008 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in SES. • For the current school year, a list of SES providers approved by the State to serve the LEA and the locations where services are provided. • For the current school year, a list of available schools that are offered to students eligible to participate in public school choice. *Reasons:* We believe that making information regarding an LEA's implementation of the public school choice and SES requirements available and transparent to the public would hold LEAs accountable for implementing these requirements and lead to greater student participation. In addition, information on the SES providers approved to serve students in the LEA and the available schools that are offered to students eligible to participate in public school choice would help parents make informed choices for their children. An LEA's Web site is one way for LEAs to make information on public school choice and SES widely available because these sites can be easily updated with the latest information and are a medium that can be accessed anytime and anywhere by individuals and entities. For parents without access to the Internet, LEAs and community organizations would be encouraged to make this information available to parents through other avenues. Section 200.43—Restructuring *Statute:* Under section 1116(a)(7) of the ESEA, if any school served by an LEA does not make AYP by the end of the second full school year after having been identified for improvement, the LEA must identify the school for corrective action and take one of several specific corrective actions. These may include replacing school staff and instituting a new curriculum. If, after one full school year of corrective action, a school continues not to make AYP, the LEA must identify the school for restructuring and implement a restructuring plan under section 1116(b)(8)(A) of the ESEA. In addition to implementing a restructuring plan, the LEA must continue to provide SES and public school choice to eligible students. Section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the ESEA sets forth the requirements for implementing restructuring plans and requires that, not later than the beginning of the school year following the year in which an LEA implements restructuring, the LEA must implement one of the following alternative governance arrangements for the school consistent with State law:
(i)Reopen the school as a public charter school;
(ii)Replace all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make AYP;
(iii)Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school;
(iv)Turn the operation of the school over to the SEA, if permitted under State law and agreed to by the State; or
(v)Any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school, and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.43 of the current regulations, for the most part, restates the statutory language. The regulations also clarify that a school must continue to implement its restructuring plan until it has made AYP for two consecutive years. *Proposed Regulations:* The proposed regulations would make several clarifying changes. First, we propose to move the parenthetical in current § 200.43(a)(1) that provides examples of fundamental reforms to proposed § 200.43(b)(3)(v) to better track the statutory language in section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the ESEA. Second, proposed § 200.43(a)(4) would clarify that interventions implemented as part of a school's restructuring plan must be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than those interventions implemented under the school's corrective action plan as required under § 200.42. Third, proposed § 200.43(a)(5) would require that an LEA implement interventions that address the reasons for the school's being in restructuring in order to enable the school to exit restructuring as soon as possible. Fourth, the proposed regulations would revise § 200.43(b)(3)(ii) to clarify that, in replacing all or most of the school staff, an LEA may also replace the principal; however, replacing the principal alone would not be sufficient to constitute restructuring. Finally, in addition to the proposed change to track more closely the language in section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the ESEA, proposed § 200.45(b)(3)(v) would clarify again that, in making significant changes in the school's staff, an LEA may not replace only the principal. *Reasons:* Based on available data, the Department is concerned that the restructuring requirements in § 200.43 are not being implemented effectively, and in some cases not at all. Preliminary analyses of Department data from 36 States indicate that only approximately 18 percent of schools that were identified for restructuring in either the 2004-2005 or 2005-2006 school year have exited restructuring status. 15 In addition, a recent study from the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)found that 40 percent of schools in restructuring did not implement any of the five restructuring options. 16 15 U.S. Department of Education. (2008). *EDFacts.* Unpublished raw data. 16 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). *No Child Left Behind Act: Education Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Status (GAO-07-1035). Washington, DC: Author.* The Department needs to address these issues because a large number of schools could potentially enter restructuring in the next few years. For the 2006-2007 school year, 2,330 schools were identified for corrective action, 937 schools were identified for restructuring after not meeting AYP for five years, and 1,242 schools began implementing their restructuring plans after not meeting AYP for six years. It is important to make these proposed regulatory changes at this time in order to strengthen the restructuring requirements and thereby help schools to exit restructuring as soon as possible. Although rigorous research is limited on what restructuring interventions are most effective and under what conditions, correlational and descriptive studies indicate that more than one reform should be implemented in a school, rather than relying on one “silver bullet” to address the significant academic needs of a school that has not made AYP for six or more years. For example, a study of restructuring in Michigan conducted by the Center on Education Policy
(CEP)found, in general, that multiple reform efforts tailored to the needs of the schools were more likely to result in the schools' making AYP and exiting restructuring. 17 17 Scott, C. (2007). *What Now? Lessons from Michigan About Restructuring Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy.* To strengthen the requirements for schools in restructuring, we are proposing to clarify, consistent with the statute, that the actions taken by a school identified for restructuring must
(1)be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than those the school implemented as corrective actions and
(2)address the reasons for the school's being identified for restructuring. Schools that have been identified for restructuring are in that status because they have continually not made AYP, notwithstanding the reforms undertaken when the school was in improvement or corrective action. Simply continuing the same actions that were unsuccessful in moving the school out of improvement or corrective action is unlikely to be sufficient to move the school out of restructuring. Restructuring requires actions that are more comprehensive and rigorous than those the school took when the school was in improvement or corrective action status. Consistent with the need for more comprehensive and rigorous actions when a school is in restructuring, we also are proposing to clarify that, when a State, as part of its restructuring plan, chooses to make significant changes in the school's staff, these changes may include, but may not be limited to, replacing the principal. While we believe that it is important to place the right leader in a chronically under-performing school, as permitted in current § 200.43, simply replacing the principal without any other changes is inconsistent with the statute and likely insufficient to move a school out of restructuring. Just as we would not expect that continuing the same actions that were instituted when a school was in improvement or corrective action would move the school out of restructuring, we also would not expect a school to be able to make sufficient gains to exit restructuring if the interventions do not address the specific reasons that the school continues not to make AYP. For example, if a school is in restructuring because either the “all students” group or subgroups that comprise a large percentage of its students have not made AYP for six years, a restructuring plan that addresses only a subset of the students would not be likely to move a school out of restructuring; rather, the restructuring plan would need to be broader in scope and address the needs of the majority of students. Section 200.44—Public School Choice *Statute:* Section 1116(b)(1)(E) requires LEAs to provide students enrolled in a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring with the option to transfer to another school not later than the first day of the school year following such identification. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.44 provides that if an LEA identifies a school for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the LEA must provide all students attending the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA. An LEA must offer this option to parents not later than the first day of the school year following the year in which the LEA administered the assessment that resulted in its identification of the school for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.44(a)(2)(ii) would reference proposed § 200.37(b)(4) to make clear that an LEA must notify parents about the option to transfer their child to another school and the available public school choices sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 calendar days before, the start of the school year so that parents have adequate time to exercise their choice option before the school year begins. *Reasons:* Reiterating in the public school choice section of the regulations that notice to parents of the availability of public school choice must occur in a timely manner, consistent with proposed § 200.37(b)(4)(iv), would help ensure that LEAs understand that they must notify parents about their public school choice options sufficiently in advance of the start of the school year so that parents have sufficient time to consider their options and make an informed decision. Section 200.47—SEA Responsibilities for Supplemental Educational Services *Statute:* Section 1116(e)(1) of the ESEA requires LEAs to arrange for the provision of SES to eligible students from a provider with a demonstrated record of effectiveness. A provider is defined in section 1116(e)(12)(B) as a non-profit entity, for-profit entity, or LEA that
(1)has a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement;
(2)is capable of providing SES that are consistent with the instructional program of the LEA and the academic standards described in section 1111 of the ESEA; and
(3)is financially sound. Section 1116(e)(3)(A) of the ESEA requires an LEA to develop, with the parents of a child participating in SES and the provider, an agreement that includes a statement of specific achievement goals for the student, a description of how the student's progress will be measured, and a timetable for improving achievement. Section 1116(e)(3)(C) also requires that this agreement be terminated if the provider is unable to meet the goals and timetables specified in the agreement. Section 1116(e)(4)(B) of the ESEA requires States to develop and apply, in the selection of providers, objective criteria that are based on a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing the academic proficiency of students in subjects relevant to meeting the State's academic content and student achievement standards. Section 1116(e)(4)(D) requires States to develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the services offered by approved providers and for withdrawing approval from providers that fail, for two consecutive years, to contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of students served. Section 1116(e)(5)(B) requires providers to ensure that their instructional program is consistent with the instruction provided and content used by the LEA and State, and that it is aligned with State student academic achievement standards. *Current Regulations:* Section 200.47 repeats the statutory requirements regarding the State's responsibility to approve SES providers with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, and to develop and apply objective criteria to monitor and withdraw approval of providers. Section 200.47 also requires that, to be approved by an SEA, the provider must agree to ensure that the instruction the provider gives and the content the provider uses are consistent with the instruction provided and the content used by the LEA and the SEA, and are aligned with State student academic achievement standards. *Proposed Regulations:* We propose several changes to the regulations regarding SEA responsibilities for SES. *Monitoring LEA implementation.* Proposed § 200.47(a)(4)(iii) would require a State to develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques for monitoring LEAs' implementation of the SES requirements in the ESEA. *Approving SES providers.* Proposed § 200.47(b)(2)(ii) would clarify that, to be approved as an SES provider, an entity must provide the State with evidence that the instruction it would provide and the content it would use are aligned with the State's academic content and student academic achievement standards and are research-based. Proposed § 200.47(b)(3) would require that, as a condition of approval, a State must consider, at a minimum,
(1)information from the provider on whether the provider has been removed from any State's approved provider list;
(2)parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if any, regarding the success of the provider's instructional program in increasing student achievement; and
(3)evaluation results, if any, demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement. *Monitoring approved providers.* Proposed § 200.47(c) would specify the evidence that a State must consider when monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the services offered by an approved provider in order to inform the renewal or withdrawal of approval of a provider. Specifically, § 200.47(c) would require a State to examine, at a minimum, evidence that the provider's instructional program
(1)is consistent with the instruction provided and the content used by the LEA and SEA;
(2)addresses students' individual needs as described in students' SES plans;
(3)has contributed to increasing students' academic proficiency (as required by section 1116(e)(4)(D)); and
(4)is aligned with State academic content and student academic achievement standards. In addition, States would also be required to consider, if any, parent recommendations, results from parent surveys, or results from other evaluations demonstrating the success of the provider's instructional program in improving student achievement. *Reasons:* We believe that providing information to the public about how SEAs monitor the implementation of SES requirements by their LEAs, and enhancing the criteria that SEAs must use to approve and monitor SES providers, would strengthen the implementation of SES by SEAs and LEAs and ultimately contribute to increased student achievement. Following is the rationale for each of these changes. *Monitoring LEA implementation.* While SEAs are required under the current regulations to monitor LEAs and their implementation of the SES requirements, the proposed regulations would require SEAs to publicly report on the standards and techniques for how they monitor their LEAs' implementation of the SES requirements. We believe that requiring States to develop, implement, and publicly report on the criteria they use to monitor LEAs' implementation of SES will help ensure that SEAs set rigorous and clear expectations for their LEAs. *Approving SES providers.* We have learned in discussions with States that there is uncertainty regarding the evidence that States may require providers to submit as part of their application to be an approved SES provider. We believe that specifying the minimum evidence that SEAs must consider in approving providers will help ensure that students receive high quality SES services and reinforce with States that they have the authority and the responsibility to approve only entities that will contribute to increased student academic achievement. *Monitoring approved providers.* To ensure that State-approved providers deliver high quality SES services, it is important that States monitor the provision of SES. We believe that the monitoring criteria in proposed § 200.47(c)(1) would reinforce with States that they have the authority and the responsibility to monitor providers in order to make informed decisions about whether SES providers should remain on a State's approved provider list. We believe that specifying the minimum evidence that SEAs must consider in approving providers will help ensure that students receive high quality SES services and reinforce with States that they have the authority and the responsibility to approve only entities that will contribute to increased student academic achievement. Section 200.48—Funding for Choice-Related Transportation and Supplemental Educational Services
(SES)*Statute and Current Regulations:* Section 1116(b)(10) of the ESEA and § 200.48(a)(2) require LEAs to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I, Part A allocations, unless a lesser amount is needed, to comply with all requests for SES and to provide transportation, or pay for the transportation costs, for students exercising the public school choice option under the ESEA. An LEA may use Title I funds to pay for the costs to implement SES and public school choice, including outreach to parents; however, under § 200.48(a)(2)(iii)(B), the LEA may not count these costs toward meeting its 20 percent obligation. *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.48(a)(2)(iii)(C) would allow an LEA to count costs for providing outreach and assistance to parents regarding public school choice and SES toward meeting its 20 percent obligation. The amount that could be counted toward these costs would be capped at an amount equal to 0.2 percent of the LEA's Title I, Part A, subpart 2 allocation. An LEA would still be able to spend more than that amount on parental outreach activities; the proposed regulations would only cap what could be counted toward meeting the 20 percent obligation. Proposed § 200.48(d) would require an LEA, before reallocating unused funds from choice-related transportation and SES to other purposes, to demonstrate to the SEA that it had met specific criteria established in proposed § 200.48(d)(1). Specifically, the LEA would have to demonstrate success in the following:
(a)Partnering with community-based organizations or other groups to reach out to eligible students and their families about SES and public school choice opportunities.
(b)Ensuring that eligible students and their parents have had a genuine opportunity to sign up to transfer to another public school or receive SES, including by: • Providing timely, accurate notice as required in §§ 200.36 and 200.37 of the availability of public school choice and SES. • Ensuring that sign-up forms for SES are distributed directly to all eligible students and their parents and are made widely available and accessible through broad means of dissemination, such as the Internet, other media, and communications through public agencies serving eligible students and their families. • Allowing eligible students to sign up for SES throughout the school year.
(c)Ensuring that eligible SES providers are given access to school facilities, using a fair, open, and objective process, on the same basis and terms as are available to other groups that seek access to school facilities. If an LEA does not meet these criteria, the proposed regulations would require the LEA to spend the amount remaining from its 20 percent obligation in the following school year for choice-related transportation, SES, or parent outreach (subject to the 0.2 percent cap in § 200.48(a)(2)(iii)(C)). The requirement to spend these unused funds would be in addition to the requirement to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation in the following school year. *Reasons:* There is evidence indicating that SES participation improves student achievement. A recent study by the RAND Corporation, supported by the Department, found that, in five out of the seven large urban districts in which there were sufficient numbers of students to analyze the effects, students participating in SES showed statistically significant positive effects in both reading and mathematics achievement. 18 However, currently, only 14.5 percent of eligible students take advantage of SES nationwide. 19 18 U.S. Department of Education. (2007). *State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement,* Washington, DC: Author. 19 U.S. Department of Education. *Consolidated State Performance Report, 2006-2007.* Unpublished raw data. In order to increase participation in SES and public school choice, the Department believes that LEAs need to devote sufficient time and resources to effectively notify parents of available public school choice and SES options. Currently, LEAs are not permitted to count costs for these activities toward meeting their 20 percent obligation for choice-related transportation and SES. The proposed regulations would permit LEAs to count a limited amount of funds for parent outreach and assistance in order to help ensure that LEAs provide parents with the information they need to make the best, most informed decisions for their children. The proposed regulations also would require LEAs, before reallocating funds for other purposes, to demonstrate to the SEA success in meeting several requirements. Our rationale for each of these requirements follows. *Partnering with community-based organizations.* In a survey of LEAs' strategies for communicating with parents about their SES options, only 16 percent of LEAs reported that they worked with a local community partner to reach parents regarding their SES options, and only 10 percent did so to communicate with parents about public school choice options. 20 We learned during visits to LEAs across the country as part of a 2007 outreach tour on SES and public school choice that information from a variety of sources is needed to reach parents and make them fully aware of their SES and public school choice options. LEAs that we met with reported that partnering with community organizations was an effective way of making parents aware of SES and public school choice options for their children. 21 20 Stullich, S., Eisner, E., & McCrary, J. (2007). *National Assessment of Title I: Final Report, Volume I: Implementation.* Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 21 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, *Giving Parents Options: Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Under No Child Left Behind,* Washington, DC, 2007. *Providing timely, accurate notice.* As noted in our discussion of the proposed changes to § 200.37, the NATI report provides evidence that notifying parents of their public school choice options in a timely manner helps to increase study participation in public school choice. The NATI report also found that in 2004-2005 the quality and clarity of LEAs' parent notification letters regarding SES and public school choice varied considerably with many omitting key information. For example, fewer than half of the 20 public school choice letters that were sampled identified the schools that parents could choose for their children, and fewer than half of the 21 SES letters sampled identified the eligible SES providers. 22 We believe that requiring LEAs to provide parents with timely and accurate notice of their SES and public school choice options is essential to ensuring that parents have the information they need to make informed decisions about their child's education. 22 Stullich, S., Eisner, E., & McCrary, J. (2007). *National Assessment of Title I: Final Report, Volume I: Implementation.* Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. *Sign-up forms and signing up throughout the school year.* The Department believes that parents of students eligible to receive SES should have opportunities to request SES for their children throughout the school year. A short sign-up period at the beginning of the school year may exclude many students from participation, including, for example, children whose parents learn later in the school year that their child is struggling and needs additional support. Moreover, it is important that parents can easily access the forms to sign-up for services. We know from our discussions with States and SES providers that participation in SES is lower when access to sign-up forms is limited, for example, by requiring parents to attend a meeting or to travel to a district or school office to obtain the form. We believe that distributing sign-up forms directly to eligible students and their parents and allowing eligible students to sign up to receive SES services throughout the school year will make it easier for students and parents to take advantage of SES services. *Access to school facilities.* The statute does not require LEAs to pay or provide transportation for students to and from SES programs; therefore, if SES providers cannot operate on school grounds, families may have to arrange transportation for their children to the site where SES services are provided. Although the Department has promoted a policy of access to school facilities through non-regulatory guidance and technical assistance for several years, many LEAs around the country continue to deny providers access to their buildings. Giving providers access to school facilities is an important way of ensuring that families can participate in, and students can attend, SES programs. We believe that these proposed changes will encourage LEAs to improve opportunities for parents to take advantage of their options and result in more students participating in public school choice and SES, ultimately leading to increased student achievement. Section 200.56—Definition of “highly qualified teacher” *Statutes and regulations:* Under section 9101(23) of the ESEA and § 200.56, a highly qualified teacher in any public elementary or secondary school must hold at least a bachelor's degree and either have
(1)obtained full State teacher certification or
(2)passed the State teacher licensing examination and hold a license to teach in that State. The ESEA also includes additional requirements for a highly qualified teacher depending on which grade level the teacher teaches and whether the teacher is new to the profession. Under section 1119(a)(1) of the ESEA, beginning with the first day of the 2002-2003 school year, each LEA receiving assistance under Title I, Part A is responsible for applying these requirements to any public school teacher teaching in a core academic subject supported by Part A funds who is hired after that date. The LEA also must have a plan to ensure that all public school teachers teaching in core academic subjects in the LEA meet these requirements by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Under section 602(10)(A) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.18, a highly qualified special education teacher must obtain full State certification as a special education teacher or pass the State special education teacher licensing exam and hold a license to teach in the State as a special education teacher. The IDEA also includes requirements for special education teachers who teach core academic subjects exclusively to children who are assessed against alternate academic achievement standards. Section 602(10)(C) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.18(c) require special education teachers teaching core academic subjects exclusively to alternate achievement standards to meet the NCLB requirements for elementary school teachers *and* have subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided and needed to teach to those standards effectively. Special education teachers teaching multiple subjects and who are new to the profession have additional flexibility. Section 602(10)(D)(iii) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.18(d) permit a new special education teacher who teaches multiple subjects and who is highly qualified in mathematics, language arts, or science, to have two years to demonstrate competence on the other core area subjects the teacher teaches, which may include a single high objective uniform State standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). *Proposed Regulations:* Proposed § 200.56(d) would add a cross-reference to the definition of *highly qualified special education teachers* in 34 CFR 300.18 of the IDEA regulations. *Reasons:* Special education teachers provide individualized and specialized instruction to improve the academic achievement of students with disabilities. The current Title I regulations do not define the requirements for highly qualified special education teachers who do not teach core academic subjects. The cross-reference aligns the Title I regulations with the IDEA regulations; the current requirements for highly qualified general or special education teachers would not change. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may
(1)have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments, or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2)create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order. 1. Potential Costs and Benefits The proposed costs have been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulatory action. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of these proposed regulations, the Department has determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations exceed the costs. The Department also has determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. To assist the Department in complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comments on whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration of the programs. Summary of Costs and Benefits The Department believes that the majority of the proposed regulatory changes will not impose significant costs on States, LEAs, or other entities that participate in programs funded under Part A of Title I. For example, the entire cost of the National TAC would be borne by the Department and would be financed through funds appropriated by the Congress for the Department's operations. As additional examples, the proposed regulations on multiple measures of student achievement, identification of schools and LEAs for improvement, and restructuring should provide useful clarification to the States without imposing any new costs on them. Similarly, the proposed regulations would require LEAs to notify parents of eligible students of the option to transfer their child to another school, sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 calendar days before, the start of the school year to give those parents adequate time to exercise their public school choice option; this regulation would not increase LEA costs because it would affect merely the timing of the parental notification. As another example, States and LEAs should be able to implement at minimal cost the requirement to include NAEP data on State and LEA report cards. The State NAEP results are available on the NCES Web site and through other sources, and obtaining those data should not pose a significant burden. Neither should including the data on the report cards, as the NAEP results would be a minor addition to the data already so included. The regulations would clarify that State definitions of AYP must include a minimum subgroup size that is based on sound statistical methodology, that yields statistically reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used, and that ensures that, to the maximum extent practicable, all student subgroups are included, particularly at the school level, in accountability determinations. All States would be required to revise their Accountability Workbooks and explain how their minimum subgroup sizes meet these criteria and to provide certain other information on their minimum subgroup sizes and AYP definitions. Within six months of the effective date of the final regulation, States would be required to submit to the Department, for technical assistance and peer review, a revised Accountability Workbook that reflects these new requirements. The Department has previously reviewed each State's minimum subgroup size and believes that some already meet the proposed criteria. Some States, however, may need to revise their minimum subgroup sizes and other components of the State's AYP definition based on the new requirements and on feedback from the new peer review. The costs to States of submitting a revised Accountability Workbook for technical assistance and peer review should be fairly low, as these Accountability Workbooks would, in large part, incorporate policies and amendments that the States have already included in their Workbooks in past years. The Department estimates that each State would, on average, require 112 hours of staff time to complete this effort, including 80 hours for development and analysis of a proposed minimum subgroup size policy (within an overall definition of AYP) and an additional 32 hours for actual preparation of the Workbook. We further estimate that SEAs' cost for that activity will be $30 an hour. For the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the estimated cost of revising and submitting their Workbooks would thus be $174,720. The Department further estimates that 25 States may need to do additional work on their Accountability Workbooks as a result of feedback from the peer review. The Department estimates that this work will require an additional 40 hours of staff time per State, adding an additional $30,000, for a total estimated cost of $204,720 to implement these proposed requirements. The Department believes that the costs of implementing this new policy should be minimal. The Department further believes that the benefits of this change, in terms of greater accountability that would result from the use of minimum subgroup sizes that meet the proposed criteria, would greatly outweigh the minimal costs of compliance. The proposed regulation to allow States to use measures of individual student academic growth in school and LEA AYP determinations would provide States with greater flexibility without burdening them with significant additional costs. Although, in order to receive permission to incorporate individual student academic growth into its AYP definition, a State would have had to have implemented a longitudinal data system that tracks student progress from grade to grade, it is highly unlikely that any State would develop and implement such a data system only (or even primarily) in order to use measures of individual student growth for calculating AYP; this is the case because the benefits of having a longitudinal student data system in place are much greater than just having the ability to support the use of individual student academic growth in calculating AYP. States have found such systems to be valuable in numerous ways, including in tracking the educational progress of students as they progress through grades and across schools and school systems; more accurately determining whether students graduate from high school; calculating accurate student dropout rates; holding schools and LEAs accountable for results; targeting assistance to those schools and LEAs most in need; determining whether the content their secondary schools offer is well aligned with college-preparedness requirements; identifying strengths and weaknesses in teacher preparedness; and measuring the educational performance of the State as a whole. For these reasons, many States had developed longitudinal student data systems, or were in the planning stages of such development, even before the Department announced the Growth Model Pilot in 2005. Therefore, the Department believes it would be inappropriate to assign the costs States incur in designing and implementing longitudinal data systems as a cost of this change in the regulations. The proposed regulations would require States to adopt a uniform cohort definition of graduation rate no later than school year 2012-2013. States that do not currently have the capacity to track student transfers would be required to use an interim rate, the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR). The regulations also would require the use of disaggregated graduation rate data for AYP purposes beginning in the 2008-2009 school year for States and LEAs and in the 2012-2013 school year for school-level accountability determinations. In addition, the proposed regulations would require a State to include in its AYP definition
(a)a graduation rate goal that the State expects all high schools to meet ( *e.g.* , 90 percent), and
(b)how LEAs demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding the goal. To make AYP, the school or LEA must meet or exceed the graduation rate goal or demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement. As discussed earlier (in the explanation of the proposed changes to § 200.19), the Department, based on work completed by NCES and the NGA, believes that States can incorporate the AFGR into their AYP definitions using currently available data. The Department, thus, believes these adjustments can be completed at minimal cost. In order to meet the proposed 2012-2013 deadline for implementation of a uniform cohort graduation rate, States will need to have in place a data system that can track cohorts over four years, including the ability to track (and include in graduation rate calculations) students who drop out of school or leave in order to transfer to another school. States also will need to collect four years of student data through those systems in order to implement the new rate by the proposed deadline. However, it is important to note that, while a data system that tracks individual student data could be used to collect data for this rate, such a system would not be required in order to implement the proposed graduation rate requirements. In addition, the data needed to calculate the AFGR are already available to all schools, LEAs, and States, as reported in the Common Core of Data produced by NCES. The proposed regulations would not impose new costs on a State unless it does not yet have the data system capability to start collecting the four years of data needed to implement the uniform cohort graduation rate. We believe that the proposed regulations would not impose significant costs on States that they were not likely to assume in the absence of the regulations. In 2005, all 50 States agreed to the National Governors Association's Graduation Counts: A Compact on State High School Graduation Data, which calls for each State to develop a longitudinal graduation rate. In addition, data reported by the States to the Data Quality Campaign indicate that all States except for two will have in place a data system that can track individual students by the end of the 2007-2008 school year. 23 Moreover, one of the two States that does not yet have such a system already uses an alternative method to calculate a cohort graduation rate that would meet the proposed regulatory requirements, and both States report that they will have such a data system by 2009-2010. These States should be able to collect the four years of required data by 2012-2013. Again, all of this reflects activities that the States initiated in the absence of the proposed regulation. 23 Data Quality Campaign, 2007 State Data Collection Survey Results: State Specific Responses to Element 1. (2007). Austin, TX: Author. Available at: *http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/element1_survey_responses.pdf.* Therefore, as with the regulation on including individual student academic growth in AYP definitions, it would not be appropriate to assume that the cost of developing these data systems would be attributable, in whole or even in large part, to the need to comply with the proposed regulation on the graduation rate. Moreover, the Federal government supports States' development of longitudinal student data systems through the Department's Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program. For the fiscal years 2005 (when the program began) through 2008, the Congress has appropriated more than $122 million for this program and, through fiscal year 2007, 27 States have received these grants. We believe the benefits of the proposed changes regarding graduation rate clearly outweigh the fairly minimal net costs previously discussed. A uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates is needed to raise expectations and to hold schools, districts, and States accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate on time with a regular high school diploma, as well as to provide parents and the public with more accurate information. By requiring all States to use a more rigorous and accurate graduation rate calculation, the Department can ensure greater accountability and transparency on this important indicator. In addition, we need to have a uniform and accurate method of calculating high school graduation rates to improve our understanding of the scope and characteristics of those students dropping out of school or taking longer to graduate. The final set of proposed regulations in this package relates to the implementation of public school choice and SES. The proposed language in § 200.37(b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(5)(iii)(A), and (b)(5)(iii)(B) would require that the notice to parents of students eligible for SES:
(a)Explain the benefits of SES,
(b)be clear and concise, and
(c)be clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents under § 200.37. Following, we estimate the costs of meeting this requirement. We note here that LEAs could assign costs related to meeting this requirement to the amount equal to 0.2 percent of their Title I, Part A allocations that the proposed regulations would permit LEAs to use for outreach and assistance to parents on public school choice and SES. Data from the ESEA Consolidated State Performance Report indicate that approximately 2,000 LEAs nationally have at least one school in year two of school improvement (or in a later stage of the Title I accountability timeline). These are the schools with students eligible for SES that would technically be covered by this new requirement. However, some of these LEAs are not able to offer SES and thus are not affected by the proposed notice requirement. For example, rural and other small or isolated districts often do not have any approved SES providers serving their area. For this reason, our analysis assumes that 80 percent of the estimated 2,000 LEAs with at least one school in year two of improvement or later, or 1,600 districts, will be subject to the notice requirement annually. We estimate that these 1,600 LEAs will each require an average of 12 hours of staff time to prepare the notice to parents so that it is clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents and that the cost for this time will average $25 per hour. Under this assumption, the cost for the preparation of this notice will be $480,000. Further, in the 2006-2007 school year, in the States for which the Department has data, approximately 3.6 million students were eligible for SES. 24 Assuming that approximately 3.6 million students continue to be eligible each year, we project that the parents of one half of these students would receive the SES information by mail, in a separate mailing, and one-half through notices that students bring home from school, in a mailing that includes other information already required to be provided to parents (in § 200.37), or by other means that impose very small costs on LEAs. For the one-half who would receive the notices by mail, the cost (assuming continuation of current postage rates) would be $738,000, bringing the total cost for the implementation of the proposed SES notice requirement to $1,218,000. 24 U.S. Department of Education. (2007). *Consolidated State Performance Report, 2006-07.* Unpublished raw data. The proposed regulations in § 200.39 would require LEAs to post on their Web sites information on their implementation of the public school choice and SES requirements, including information on the number of students who were eligible for and who participated in the public school choice and SES options, information on approved SES providers operating in the district, and a list of schools available to students who wish to take advantage of the public school choice option. Based on data from the ESEA Consolidated State Performance Report, approximately 3,000 LEAs have a school in year one of improvement or later and thus are technically required to offer either public school choice, or both public school choice and SES, to their eligible students. However, as with the SES notice requirement, some of those LEAs would not be affected because they are unable to offer public school choice and SES due to a lack of choice options (for instance, rural and other small districts frequently have only one school at a particular grade span) or the absence of an approved SES provider serving their area. We estimate that 80 percent of the 3,000 LEAs with a school in year one of improvement or later, or 2,400 districts, would need to post the new information on their Web site. We further estimate that these districts would require an average of 25 hours of staff time to prepare the data for the Web, at a cost of $25 per hour, for an estimated national cost of $1,500,000 to meet the new requirement to post public school choice and SES information on LEA web sites. Therefore, the total estimated cost for implementation of the new SES and Web site notice requirements is $2,718,000. The benefits would be that parents and others would have more and better information on the public school choices and SES programs available to eligible children and, thus, parents might be more likely to take advantage of those options (with attendant benefits for those children) and that LEA implementation of the choice and SES requirements would be more transparent. We also note that LEAs could assign costs related to meeting this requirement to the amount equal to 0.2 percent of their Title I, Part A allocations under proposed § 200.48(a)(2)(iii)(C). The proposed regulations in § 200.47 would clarify the SEA's responsibilities for SES, by stating that those responsibilities include developing, implementing, and publicly reporting on the SEA's standards and techniques for monitoring LEAs' implementation of SES. The Department believes that States already have such standards and techniques in place and that the burden of publicly reporting on them, such as by posting information about them on the SEA's Web site, would be very minimal. The benefit of the proposed regulations would be greater transparency of how SEAs monitor LEAs implementation of SES. The proposed regulations in § 200.47 would also clarify that, in order to be approved as an SES provider, an entity must provide the State with evidence that the instruction it would provide and the content it would use are aligned with the State's academic content and student academic achievement standards and are research based. In addition, a State would also be required to consider, at a minimum,
(1)whether the entity has been removed from any State's approved provider list;
(2)parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if any, regarding the success of the entity's instructional program in increasing student achievement; and
(3)evaluation results, if any, demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement. The Department believes that these requirements will result in improvements in States' SES provider approval procedures resulting in high-quality SES and improved student achievement, and that the cost of compliance will be very minimal. The proposed regulations in § 200.47 also would specify the evidence that States must consider when monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the services offered by an approved provider in order to inform decisions on renewal or withdrawal of approval of the provider. The current statute and regulations already require States to approve SES providers with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, and to develop and apply objective criteria for monitoring and withdrawal of approval of providers. The proposed regulations may add minimal costs to States if they need to revise their applications or monitoring protocol in order to comply with the requirements, or if a revised application or protocol results in more labor-intensive application review or monitoring. The proposed regulations would only add costs to SES providers if they are not already providing this information to States in their applications for approval and renewal. The minimal costs to States and SES providers would be outweighed by the benefits of having a clear outline of the evidence that States must consider both before providers begin serving students in the State and as their programs are monitored and being considered for renewal or termination. The proposed regulations on funding for public school choice and SES in § 200.48 would allow LEAs to count costs for parent outreach and assistance toward the requirement to spend the equivalent of 20 percent of the LEA's Title I, Part A allocation on choice-related transportation and SES. This change would permit an LEA to allocate up to 0.2 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (1.0 percent of the 20 percent obligation) in that manner. Allowing LEAs to count a limited amount of funds for parent outreach and assistance will help ensure that parents have the information they need to make the best decisions for their children. This change would not impose costs on LEAs, as they would, at their discretion, support the parental outreach and assistance activities by redirecting funds from other activities. The proposed amendments to § 200.48 also would require LEAs, before reallocating funds from choice-related transportation and SES to other purposes, to provide satisfactory evidence to the SEA that they have demonstrated success in:
(1)Partnering with community-based organizations and other groups in order to inform eligible students and their families about their opportunities for public school choice and SES;
(2)Ensuring that eligible students and their families have had a genuine opportunity to transfer to schools or to receive SES. The proposed language would clarify that providing such an opportunity includes
(a)providing timely and accurate notice to those students and their families, as required under §§ 200.36 and 200.37; and
(b)ensuring that sign-up forms for SES are distributed directly to all eligible students and are made widely available and accessible; and
(c)allowing eligible students to sign up to receive SES throughout the school year; and
(3)Ensuring that approved SES providers are given access to school facilities through a fair, open, and objective process. The Department believes that most of the costs that LEAs would incur in meeting these requirements would be minimal. The most tangible costs would be for developing a clearly distinguishable notification (on eligibility and the benefits of SES) to parents of eligible students (which has been accounted for in the cost estimate for § 200.37) and in documenting to the SEA that it has met the various outreach and access requirements in proposed § 200.48. We estimate these additional SEA documentation costs related to § 200.48 as follows. As noted earlier, we project that 2,400 LEAs annually will be required to offer public school choice, or both choice and SES, to their eligible students. Further, based on data for 378 LEAs reported to the Department's ED *Facts* data system, we estimate that 10 percent of those LEAs
(240)will use the full 20 percent equivalent for choice-related transportation and SES and, thus, will not be affected by the regulations. 25 Further, based on the ED *Facts* data, we estimate that an additional 15 percent of the LEAs
(360)will not initially meet the 20 percent requirement but will spend the remaining funds for choice-related transportation and SES in the following year, rather than applying to the SEA for permission to use those funds for other purposes. 26 25 The ED *Facts* data from 2005-2006 indicate that 8.2 percent of LEAs used the equivalent of at least 20 percent of their Title I allocation to fund SES. Unfortunately, the data do not include expenditures for choice-related transportation. We assume that the inclusion of expenditures for choice-related transportation would bring the total to approximately 10 percent. 26 This estimate is based on the assumption that LEAs that spend close to the 20 percent will find it more efficient to spend the remaining funds the following year than to apply to the SEA for approval to use those funds for other purposes. The ED *Facts* data from 2005-2006 indicate that 11.6 percent of LEAs used the equivalent of at least 16 percent (but less than 20 percent) of their Title I allocations for SES. Again, the data do not include expenditures for choice-related transportation; we assume that if those expenditures were included, approximately 15 percent of LEAs will elect to spend the remaining funds of their obligation in the succeeding year. The remaining 1,800 LEAs, under our assumptions, would need to submit evidence to their SEAs that they have demonstrated success in the indicated areas. We estimate that the annual cost of this effort will be $720,000, based on an assumption that each LEA would require 16 hours to prepare a submission documenting its efforts in this area and that LEAs' costs for this effort would be $25 per hour. The Department also has estimated the costs that SEAs will incur in considering the submissions prepared by LEAs. We have estimated that the total annual cost would be approximately $27,000, based on an assumption that, as described previously, 1,800 LEAs will submit them, that SEAs will require 30 minutes to review and act on each submission, and that SEAs' costs for that activity will be $30 per hour. The total estimated annual cost for LEAs and SEAs related to the reallocation requirements of proposed § 200.48 would be $747,000. Overall, the total estimated cost of implementing the proposed regulations on public school choice and SES would be $3,465,000. Although our cost estimates for the proposed public school choice and SES regulations are necessarily speculative (because of the limited availability of relevant data), the estimated costs are low even if some of the assumptions are changed significantly. For example, if the number of hours required at each stage of implementing the new public school choice and SES regulations were doubled, the total annual cost would increase only to $6,192,000. These costs, even when combined with the estimated $204,720 attributable to implementation of the proposed regulations on minimum subgroup size and submission of revised Accountability Workbooks, are an extremely small amount within the context of the $13.9 billion Title I program. The Department believes that promulgation of the regulations on public school choice and SES will result in significant benefits, in terms of more students receiving choice and SES under Title I and students and their families receiving better information about their options. A recent study by the RAND Corporation, supported by the Department, found that, in five out of the seven large urban districts in which there were sufficient numbers of students to analyze the effects, the students participating in SES showed statistically significant positive effects in both reading and mathematics achievement. 27 Moreover, for those students using SES for multiple years, the analysis suggests that the positive effects might accumulate over time. If SES can continue to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap, students, schools, and LEAs will benefit. In sum, the Department believes that the benefits students will receive, if more LEAs provide eligible students with a genuine opportunity to take advantage of the public school choice and SES options, will well exceed the small costs LEAs and SEAs would assume in implementing these regulations. Moreover, LEAs and SEAs will be able to use Federal funds provided through Title I, Part A to meet the aforementioned administrative expenses. 27 U.S. Department of Education. (2007). *State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement* , Washington, DC: Author. The major benefit of these proposed regulations, taken in their totality, is a Title I, Part A program in which clearer accountability and implementation requirements (particularly in the areas of high school graduation, public school choice, and SES) would be coupled with greater flexibility in implementation (particularly in the use of measures of individual student academic growth in calculating AYP). These proposed regulations would thus add to the contributions that NCLB has made to the creation of a system in which schools, LEAs, and States expect to educate all children to high standards and are held accountable for doing so. The proposed regulations would support the attainment of increases in student achievement that build on the improvements that the Nation has seen in the last several years. The benefits to the United States, both economic and non-economic, of having a more educated citizenry have been plentiful and will continue to be so as the reforms implemented as a result of NCLB (and as supported through the proposed regulations) continue to take hold. 2. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: • Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated? • Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interfere with their clarity? • Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? • Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in general.) • Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how? • What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand? Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that the proposed regulations will affect are small LEAs receiving funds under Title I. These proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact because the regulations impose minimal requirements beyond those that would otherwise be required under the Act, with most of those requirements falling on SEAs. Further, the small LEAs should be able to meet the costs of compliance with these regulations using Federal funds provided through Title I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 These proposed regulations contain information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). A description of the specific information collection requirements is given below with an estimate of the annual recordkeeping burden for these requirements. (Two of the requirements do not add additional burden to what has already been approved.) Included in the estimate is the time for collecting and tracking data, maintaining records, calculations, and reporting. The proposed regulations include information collection requirements associated with the following provisions that will add additional burden: § 200.7(a)(2)(i); § 200.11(c); § 200.19(a)(1); § 200.19(a)(1)(i); § 200.19(a)(1)(i)(C)(2); § 200.19(a)(1)(ii)(A); § 200.19(d)(1); § 200.19(e)(1); § 200.19(e)(2); § 200.20(h); § 200.37(b)(5); § 200.39(c); § 200.47(a)(4)(iii); and § 200.48(d). Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding the information collections to the U.S. Department of Education
(ED)within 60 days after publication of these proposed regulations. This comment period does not affect the deadline for public comments associated with these proposed regulations. Collections of information: State Educational Agency Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting under ESEA, Title I, Part A (OMB Number 1810-0581) and Consolidated State Application (OMB Number 1810-0576). Burden hours and cost estimates for the proposed regulations pertaining to “State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting under ESEA, Title I, Part A (OMB Number 1810-0581)” are presented in the following tables on the next two pages. The first table presents the estimated burden for SEAs and the second table the estimated burden for LEAs. Title I.—Regulations (Collection 1810-0581) Proposed Regulations Burden Hours/Cost for SEAs Citation Description Number of respondents Average number of hours per respondent Total hours Total cost (total hours × $30.00) § 200.11(c) Adding NAEP data to SEA report cards and developing tool for parents to compare NAEP and State assessment data 52 5 260 $7,800 § 200.19(a)(1) By SY 2012-2013 begin calculating graduation rate as the number of students graduating in the standard number of years divided by the number of students in that class's adjusted cohort 47 240 11,280 338,400 § 200.19(a)(1)(ii)(A) Through SY 2011-2012 option to calculate graduation rate using the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate
(AFGR)47 40 1,880 56,400 § 200.19(e)(1) By SY 2012-2013 calculate the graduation rate in accordance with § 200.19(a)(1) in the aggregate and disaggregate for reporting under section 1111(h) of ESEA and determining AYP under § 200.20 47 120 5,640 169,200 § 200.19(e)(2) Through SY 2011-2012 at the LEA and State levels calculate the graduation rate in accordance with § 200.19(a)(1) or § 200.19(a)(1)(ii) for reporting under section 1111(h) of ESEA and determining AYP under § 200.20; and at the school level in the aggregate for determining AYP under § 200.20(b)(2) but in the aggregate and disaggregate for determining AYP under § 200.20(b)(2) and reporting under section 1111(h) of ESEA 47 120 5,640 169,200 § 200.47(a)(4)(iii) Develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques for monitoring LEAs' implementation of the SES requirements 52 40 2,080 62,400 § 200.48(d) Reviewing LEAs' submissions on demonstrating success in the indicated areas 52 21.634 1,125 33,750 Total N/A 52 N/A 27,905 837,150 Information collection activities are also associated with other proposed revisions to § 200.47(a)(4) at the SEA level. These particular revisions, however, would not pose an additional burden to SEAs because they simply specify how SEAs are to carry out this part of the regulation and related regulations, but should not require additional time beyond the hours already estimated for § 200.47(a) in the currently approved 1810-0581 collection. Title I.—Regulations (Collection 1810-0581) Proposed Regulations Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs Citation Description Number of respondents Average number of hours per respondent Total hours Total cost (total hours × $25.00) § 200.19(a)(1)(i) Documentation that a student has enrolled in a program of study in another school, LEA, or other educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma 13,987 50 699,350 $17,483,750 § 200.37(b)(5) Providing notice to parents that their children are eligible for SES and describing the benefits of SES 3,000 12 36,000 900,000 § 200.39(c) Provide information on public school choice and SES 2,400 25 60,000 1,500,000 § 200.48(d) Demonstrating success in the indicated areas 2,250 16 36,000 900,000 Total 13,987 N/A 831,350 20,783,750 Information collection activities are also associated with modified § 200.37(b)(4)(iv) and the new regulation in § 200.44(a)(2)(ii). The information collection activities associated with these changes would not pose an additional burden to LEAs; they simply cross reference an existing regulation (§ 200.37) for which sufficient hours are already accounted for in the currently approved 1810-0581 collection. SEA burden hours and cost estimates for the proposed regulations pertaining to “Consolidated State Application (OMB Number 1810-0576)” are presented in the following table. Table 3.—Consolidated State Application (Collection 1810-0576) Citation Description Number of respondents Average number of hours per respondent Total hours Total cost (total hours × $30.00) § 200.7(a)(2)(i) Determining minimum subgroup size and revising Accountability Workbook 52 112 5,824 $174,720 § 200.19(a)(1)(i)(C)(2) Option for State to propose an alternate definition of “standard number of years” for limited categories of students 52 40 2,080 62,400 § 200.19(d)(1) Requirement for State to obtain approval of its definition of “continuous and substantial improvement” to determine whether high schools make AYP 52 40 2,080 62,400 § 200.20(h) Request waiver under section 9401 of ESEA to incorporate academic growth into State's AYP definition 52 240 12,480 374,400 Total 52 N/A 22,464 673,920 If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters need only submit comments via one submission medium. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in— • Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use; • Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions; • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and • Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses). OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed regulations. Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http//edicsweb.ed.gov* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ Building, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to
(202)401-0920. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. **Note:** The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.010 Improving Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200 Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Children, Education of children with disabilities, Education of disadvantaged children, Elementary and secondary education, Eligibility, Family-centered education, Grant programs—education, Indians—education, Infants and children, Institutions of higher education, Juvenile delinquency, Local educational agencies, Migrant labor, Nonprofit private agencies, Private schools, Public agencies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State-administered programs, State educational agencies. Dated: April 17, 2008. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend part 200 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 200.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows: § 200.2 State responsibilities for assessment.
(b)* * *
(7)Involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding of challenging content, as defined by the State. These measures may include—
(i)Single or multiple question formats that range in cognitive complexity within a single assessment; and
(ii)Multiple assessments within a subject area. 3. Section 200.7 is amended by: A. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(i). B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2)(ii) as (a)(2)(iv). C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii). The revision and additions read as follows: § 200.7 Disaggregation of data.
(a)* * * (2)(i) Based on sound statistical methodology, each State must determine the minimum number of students sufficient to—
(A)Yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used; and
(B)Ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, all student subgroups in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) are included, particularly at the school level, for purposes of making accountability determinations.
(ii)Each State must revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook under section 1111 of the Act to include—
(A)An explanation of how the State's minimum subgroup size meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section;
(B)An explanation of how other components of the State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP), in addition to the State's minimum subgroup size, interact to affect the statistical reliability of the data and to ensure the maximum inclusion of all students and student subgroups in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii); and
(C)Information regarding the number and percentage of students and student subgroups in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) excluded from school-level accountability determinations.
(iii)No later than six months following the effective date of this regulation, each State must submit a revised Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to the Department for technical assistance and peer review under the process established by the Secretary under section 1111(e)(2) of the Act. 4. Section 200.11 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 200.11 Participation in NAEP.
(c)*Report cards.* Each State and LEA must report on its annual State or LEA report card, respectively, the most recent available academic achievement results in each grade assessed, in the aggregate and disaggregated, on the State's NAEP reading and mathematics assessments under paragraph
(a)of this section. 5. Section 200.19 is amended by: A. Revising paragraph (a)(1). B. Revising paragraph (d). C. Redesignating paragraph
(e)as paragraph (f). D. Adding a new paragraph (e). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 200.19 Other academic indicators.
(a)* * *
(1)*High schools.* The graduation rate for public high schools, defined as follows:
(i)Beginning no later than the 2012-2013 school year, a State must calculate the graduation rate as the number of students who graduate in the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for that graduating class. (A)( *1* ) Consistent with paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section, the term “adjusted cohort” means the students who entered grade 9 together and any students who transferred into or entered the cohort in grades 9 through 12 minus any students removed from the cohort. ( *2* ) To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must confirm that the student has either transferred or is deceased. To confirm that a student has transferred, the school or LEA must have official documentation that the student has enrolled in a program of study in another school, LEA, or other educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma. ( *3* ) A student who is retained in grade, enrolled in a General Educational Development
(GED)program, or leaves school for any other reason may not be counted as a transfer for the purpose of calculating the graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort.
(B)The term “regular high school diploma” means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a GED, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award. (C)( *1* ) The term “standard number of years” means four years unless a high school begins after ninth grade, in which case the standard number of years is the number of grades in the school. ( *2* ) A State may propose, for approval by the Secretary, an alternate definition of “standard number of years” that would apply to limited categories of students who, under certain conditions, may take longer to graduate. (ii)(A) A State that does not have in effect a Statewide data system necessary to calculate the graduation rate as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must use the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate
(AFGR)on a transitional basis. The AFGR is the number of high school students who graduate in the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma, as defined in this section, divided by the number of students in the incoming freshman class four years earlier (assuming that the standard number of years is four under paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section), which is estimated by averaging the enrollment of that freshman class with the enrollment of that class in eighth grade the prior year and in tenth grade the subsequent year (or the average of the enrollment for the ninth and tenth grades if a school or LEA does not have an eighth grade).
(B)A State may not use the AFGR to calculate graduation rate after school year 2011-2012. (d)(1) A State must—
(i)Set a graduation rate goal that represents the rate the State expects all high schools to meet;
(ii)Define how schools and LEAs demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding the graduation rate goal; and
(iii)Submit to the Secretary for approval the graduation rate goal and the definition of continuous and substantial improvement.
(2)Beginning in the 2008-2009 school year, in order to make AYP, a high school or LEA must—
(i)Meet or exceed the graduation rate goal set by the State under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section; or
(ii)Demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year, as defined by the State under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3)A State may, but is not required to, increase the goals of its academic indicators other than graduation rate. (e)(1) No later than the 2012-2013 school year, a State must calculate the graduation rate in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section at the school, LEA, and State levels in the aggregate and disaggregated by each subgroup in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) (economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities as defined in section 9101(5) of the Act; and students with limited English proficiency as defined in section 9101(25) of the Act) for reporting under section 1111(h) of the Act (annual report cards) and for determining AYP under § 200.20.
(2)Prior to school year 2012-2013, a State must calculate the graduation rate in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section—
(i)At the LEA and State levels, in the aggregate and disaggregated in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
(ii)At the school level—
(A)In the aggregate for determining AYP under § 200.20(a)(1)(ii); but
(B)In the aggregate and disaggregated by each subgroup in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) (economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities as defined in section 9101(5) of the Act; and students with limited English proficiency as defined in section 9101(25) of the Act) for purposes of determining AYP under § 200.20(b)(2) (“safe harbor”), for reporting under section 1111(h) of the Act (annual report cards), and as required under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act (additional other academic indicators in a State's definition of AYP).
(3)With respect to its other academic indicators, other than graduation rate, a State—
(i)Must disaggregate those indicators by each subgroup described in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) (economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities as defined in section 9101(5) of the Act; and students with limited English proficiency as defined in section 9101(25) of the Act) for purposes of determining AYP under § 200.20(b)(2) (“safe harbor”), for reporting under section 1111(h) of the Act (annual report cards), and as required under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act (additional other academic indicators in a State's definition of AYP); but
(ii)Need not disaggregate those indicators for determining AYP under § 200.20(a)(1)(ii) (meeting the State's annual measurable objectives). 6. Section 200.20 is amended by: A. Adding a new paragraph (h). B. Revising the authority citation. The addition and revision read as follows: § 200.20 Making adequate yearly progress.
(h)*Student academic growth.*
(1)A State may request authority under section 9401 of the Act to incorporate student academic growth in the State's definition of AYP under this section.
(2)A State's policy for incorporating student academic growth in the State's definition of AYP must—
(i)Set annual growth targets that—
(A)Will lead to all students, by school year 2013-2014, meeting or exceeding the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments under § 200.2;
(B)Are based on meeting the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments under § 200.2 and are not based on individual student background characteristics; and
(C)Measure student achievement separately in mathematics and reading/language arts;
(ii)Ensure that all students enrolled in the grades tested under § 200.2 are included in the State's assessment and accountability systems;
(iii)Hold all schools and LEAs accountable for the performance of all students and the student subgroups described in § 200.13(b)(7)(ii);
(iv)Be based on State assessments that—
(A)Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading/language arts;
(B)Have been in use by the State for more than one year; and
(C)Have received full approval from the Secretary before the State determines AYP based on student academic growth;
(v)Track student progress through the State data system;
(vi)Include, as separate factors in determining whether schools are making AYP for a particular year—
(A)The rate of student participation in assessments under § 200.2; and
(B)Other academic indicators as described in § 200.19; and
(vii)Describe how the State's annual growth targets fit into the State's accountability system in a manner that ensures that the system is coherent and that incorporating student academic growth into the State's definition of AYP does not dilute accountability.
(3)A State's proposal to incorporate student academic growth in the State's definition of AYP will be peer reviewed under the process established by the Secretary under section 1111(e)(2) of the Act. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2), (b)(3)(C)(xi); 7861) 7. Section 200.22 is added to read as follows: § 200.22 National Technical Advisory Council.
(a)To provide advice to the Department on technical issues related to the design and implementation of standards, assessments, and accountability systems, the Secretary shall establish a National Technical Advisory Council (hereafter referred to as the “National TAC”), which shall be governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Pub. L. 92-463, as amended; 5 U.S.C. App.). (b)(1) The members of the National TAC must include persons who have knowledge of and expertise in the design and implementation of educational standards, assessments, and accountability systems, including experts with technical knowledge related to statistics and psychometrics.
(2)The National TAC shall be composed of 10 to 15 members who may meet as a whole or in committees, as the Secretary may determine.
(3)The Secretary shall, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** —
(i)Solicit nominations from the public for members of the National TAC; and
(ii)Publish the list of members, once selected.
(4)The Secretary shall screen nominees for membership on the National TAC for potential conflicts of interest to prevent, to the extent possible, such conflicts, or the appearance thereof, in the National TAC's performance of its responsibilities under this section.
(c)The Secretary shall use the National TAC to provide its expert opinions on matters that arise during the State Plan review process.
(d)The Secretary shall prescribe and publish the rules of procedure for the National TAC. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(e)) 8. Section 200.32 is amended by: A. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a)(1)(i). B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(ii). The addition reads as follows: § 200.32 Identification for school improvement. (a)(1)(i) * * *
(ii)In identifying schools for improvement, an LEA—
(A)May base identification on whether a school did not make AYP because it did not meet the annual measurable objectives for the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years; but
(B)May not limit identification to those schools that did not make AYP only because they did not meet the annual measurable objectives for the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for the same subgroup under § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) for two consecutive years. 9. Section 200.37 is amended by: A. Adding new paragraph (b)(4)(iv). B. Adding new paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C). C. Adding new paragraph (b)(5)(iii). The additions read as follows: § 200.37 Notice of identification for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
(b)* * *
(4)* * *
(iv)The explanation of the available school choices must be made sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 calendar days before, the start of the school year so that parents have adequate time to exercise their choice option before the school year begins.
(5)* * *
(ii)* * *
(C)An explanation of the benefits of receiving supplemental educational services.
(iii)The annual notice of the availability of supplemental educational services must be—
(A)Clear and concise; and
(B)Clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents under this section. 10. Section 200.39 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 200.39 Responsibilities resulting from identification for school improvement.
(c)The LEA must prominently display on its Web site, as soon as it becomes available, the following information regarding the LEA's implementation of the public school choice and supplemental educational services requirements of the Act and this part:
(1)Beginning with data from the 2007-2008 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in public school choice.
(2)Beginning with data from the 2007-2008 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in supplemental educational services.
(3)For the current school year, a list of supplemental educational services providers approved by the State to serve the LEA and the locations where services are provided.
(4)For the current school year, a list of available schools to which students eligible to participate in public school choice may transfer. 11. Section 200.43 is amended by: A. Revising paragraph (a)(1). B. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the word “and” at the end of the paragraph. C. In paragraph (a)(3), removing the punctuation “.” and adding in its place the punctuation “;” at the end of the paragraph. D. Adding new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5). E. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii). F. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(v). The additions and revisions read as follows: § 200.43 Restructuring.
(a)* * *
(1)Makes fundamental reforms to improve student academic achievement in the school;
(4)Is significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the corrective action that the LEA implemented in the school under § 200.42; and
(5)Addresses the reasons why the school was identified for restructuring in order to enable the school to exit restructuring as soon as possible.
(b)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)Replace all or most of the school staff (which may include, but may not be limited to, replacing the principal) who are relevant to the school's failure to make AYP.
(v)Any other major restructuring of a school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staff (which may include, but may not be limited to, replacing the principal) and governance, in order to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP. 12. Section 200.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 200.44 Public school choice.
(a)* * *
(2)The LEA must—
(i)Offer this option not later than the first day of the school year following the school year in which the LEA administered the assessments that resulted in its identification of the school for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; and
(ii)Provide timely notice consistent with § 200.37(b)(4). 13. Section 200.47 is amended by: A. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (a)(4). B. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), removing the word “and” at the end of the paragraph. C. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), removing the punctuation “.” and adding in its place the words “; and” at the end of the paragraph. D. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4)(iii). E. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B). F. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) as paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D). G. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C). H. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(4). I. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3). J. Adding a new paragraph (c). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 200.47 SEA responsibilities for supplemental educational services.
(a)* * *
(4)Consistent with paragraph
(c)of this section, develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques for—
(iii)Monitoring LEAs' implementation of the supplemental educational services requirements of the Act and this part.
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * *
(B)Are aligned with State academic content and student academic achievement standards;
(C)Are research-based; and
(3)In approving a provider, the SEA must consider, at a minimum—
(i)Information from the provider on whether the provider has been removed from any State's approved provider list;
(ii)Parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if any, regarding the success of the provider's instructional program in increasing student achievement; and
(iii)Evaluation results, if any, demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement.
(c)*Standards for monitoring approved providers.* To monitor the quality and effectiveness of services offered by an approved provider in order to inform the renewal or the withdrawal of approval of the provider—
(1)An SEA must examine, at a minimum, evidence that the provider's instructional program—
(i)Is consistent with the instruction provided and the content used by the LEA and the SEA;
(ii)Addresses students' individual needs as described in students' supplemental educational services plans under § 200.46(b)(2)(i);
(iii)Has contributed to increasing students' academic proficiency; and
(iv)Is aligned with the State's academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
(2)The SEA must also consider information, if any, regarding—
(i)Parent recommendations or results from parent surveys regarding the success of the provider's instructional program in increasing student achievement; and
(ii)Evaluation results demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement. 14. Section 200.48 is amended by: A. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C). B. Adding a new paragraph (d). The additions read as follows: § 200.48 Funding for choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services.
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(iii)* * *
(C)The LEA may count in the amount the LEA is required to spend under paragraph
(a)of this section its costs for outreach and assistance to parents concerning their choice to transfer their child or to request supplemental educational services, up to an amount equal to 0.2 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 of part A of Title I of the ESEA.
(d)*Unexpended funds for choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services.*
(1)If an LEA does not fully meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section in a given school year, the LEA must spend the unexpended amount in the subsequent school year on choice-related transportation costs, supplemental educational services, or parent outreach and assistance (consistent with paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C)) unless the SEA approves the LEA's request to spend a lesser amount based on the SEA's determination that the LEA has demonstrated success in—
(i)Partnering with community-based organizations or other groups to help inform eligible students and their families of the opportunities to transfer or to receive supplemental educational services;
(ii)Ensuring that eligible students and their parents had a genuine opportunity to sign up to transfer or to obtain supplemental educational services, including by—
(A)Providing timely, accurate notice as required in §§ 200.36 and 200.37;
(B)Ensuring that sign-up forms for supplemental educational services are distributed directly to all eligible students and their parents and are made widely available and accessible through broad means of dissemination, such as the Internet, other media, and communications through public agencies serving eligible students and their families; and
(C)Allowing eligible students to sign up to receive supplemental educational services throughout the school year; and
(iii)Ensuring that eligible supplemental educational services providers are given access to school facilities, using a fair, open, and objective process, on the same basis and terms as are available to other groups that seek access to school facilities.
(2)The LEA must spend the unexpended funds under paragraph (d)(1) of this section in addition to the funds it is required to spend under paragraph (a)(2) of this section in the subsequent school year. 15. Section 200.50 is amended by: A. Redesignating paragraph (d)(1) as paragraph (d)(1)(i). B. Adding a new paragraph (d)(1)(ii). The addition reads as follows: § 200.50 SEA review of LEA progress.
(d)* * * (1)(i) * * *
(ii)In identifying LEAs for improvement, an SEA—
(A)May base identification on whether an LEA did not make AYP because it did not meet the annual measurable objectives for the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for two consecutive years; but
(B)May not limit identification to those LEAs that did not make AYP only because they did not meet the annual measurable objectives for the same subject or meet the same other academic indicator for the same subgroup under § 200.13(b)(7)(ii) for two consecutive years. 16. Section 200.56 is amended by: A. Revising the introductory text. B. Adding a new paragraph (d). C. Revising the authority citation. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 200.56 Definition of “highly qualified teacher.” Except as provided in paragraph (d), to be a “highly qualified teacher,” a teacher described in § 200.55 must meet the requirements in paragraph
(a)and either paragraph
(b)or
(c)of this section.
(d)To be a “highly qualified special education teacher,” a teacher must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 300.18. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(10); 7801(23)) [FR Doc. E8-8700 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P 73 79 Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Presidential Documents Part III The President Executive Order 13463—Amending Executive Orders 13389 and 13390 Title 3— The President Executive Order 13463 of April 18, 2008 Amending Executive Orders 13389 and 13390 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121-5206), it is hereby ordered as follows: **Section 1.** Executive Order 13389 of November 1, 2005, as amended, is further amended:
(a)in subsection 2(a), by striking “Economic Policy” and inserting in lieu thereof “Homeland Security and Counterterrorism”; and
(b)in section 5, by striking “3 years from the date of this order” and inserting in lieu thereof “February 28, 2009”. **Sec. 2.** Subsection 5(b) of Executive Order 13390 of November 1, 2005, is amended:
(a)by striking the comma after “applicable law” and inserting “and”; and
(b)striking “3 years from the date of this order” and inserting in lieu thereof “February 28, 2009”. GWBOLD.EPS THE WHITE HOUSE, April 18, 2008. [FR Doc. 08-1182 Filed 4-22-08; 8:34 am]
Connectionstraces to 46
Traces to 46 documents
U.S. Code
57 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 105-392
  • 45 CFR 98.17
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)
  • Pub. L. 110-85
  • 121 Stat. 823
  • 121 Stat. 944
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 44 USC 35
  • 88 Stat. 1896
  • 24 CFR 16
  • 16 USC 668dd-668ee
  • Pub. L. 105-57
  • 50 CFR 18
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 44 USC 350(c)(2)(A)
  • 25 CFR 46
  • 90 Stat. 1083
  • 43 CFR 3410
  • 43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1)
  • Pub. L. 109-164
  • 26 USC 2813
  • 10 CFR 52
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 19
  • 14 CFR 17
  • 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2)
  • 450 U.S. 311
  • 49 CFR 1152.50
  • 467 U.S. 622
  • 90 F.3d 580
  • 762 F.2d 106
  • 132 F.3d 60
  • 59 F.3d 248
  • 12 CFR 25
  • Rev. Proc. 89-56
+ 17 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of meeting
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 299c
U.S.C.§ 3502
U.S.C.§ 352
U.S.C.§ 321
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 1304
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 3535
SCOTUS450 U.S. 311
SCOTUS467 U.S. 622
F. App'x90 F.3d 580
Cites 103 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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