Unknown. Final special conditions; request for comments

20,346 words·~92 min read·/register/2008/04/25/08-1184

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-04-25.xml --- 73 81 Friday, April 25, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22321 E8-9084 Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Establishment of the Swan Creek Viticultural Area (2005R-414P), 22273-22277 E8-9106 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22462-22465 E8-9105 Arctic Arctic Research Commission NOTICES Meetings:

Arctic Research Commission, 22322 E8-8964 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 22418 E8-9054 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High Risk Pools, 22281-22287 E8-9066 PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program:

Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System (2009 FY), 22674-22714 08-1174 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22418-22420 E8-9067 E8-9068 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Det Norske Veritas Healthcare, Inc. for Deeming Authority for Hospitals, 22420-22421 E8-8266 Meetings: Practicing Physicians Advisory Council, 22421-22423 E8-8231 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22423 E8-9040 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations:; Chelsea River, Chelsea and East Boston, MA Chelsea River, Chelsea and East Boston, MA, 22277 E8-8993 PROPOSED RULES Regattas and Marine Parades: Great Lakes Annual Marine Events, 22303-22307 E8-8864 NOTICES Meetings: Naheola Railroad Bridge Across the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Mile 173.5, Near Pennington, Alabama, 22427-22428 E8-9008 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List;

Additions and Deletion, 22322-22323 E8-9051 Procurement List; Proposed Additions, 22323-22324 E8-9050 Defense Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Missile Defense Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 22344 E8-9086 Delaware Delaware River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Delaware River Basin Commission, 22344-22347 E8-9112 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Classification of Three Steroids as Schedule III Anabolic Steroids, 22294-22300 E8-8842 Education Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Award for 2008 Fiscal Year;

Availability: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 22347-22351 E8-9109 Final Priority and Definitions: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research et al., 22351-22355 E8-9108 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 22355-22358 E8-9115 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES State Plan Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act, 22470-22652 E8-8335 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Affirmative Determination of Application for Reconsideration:

Agilent Technologies Measurement Systems Division, Loveland, Colorado, 22433-22434 E8-9103 Bolton Metal Products Company, Bellefonte, PA, 22434 E8-9100 Certification Eligibility for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance: Faurecia Exhaust Systems et al., Granger, IN, 22434 E8-9102 Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance: Fedder North America, Inc., 22434-22435 E8-8977 Eligibility Certification for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance:

Fantech, Inc. et al., Sarasota, FL, 22435 E8-9101 Manosh Hardwoods LLC Sawmill, et al.; Morrisville, VT, 22435 E8-8974 Workforce Investment Act; Lower Living Standard Income Level, 22435-22441 E8-9076 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, 22358 E8-9082 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board; Savannah River Site, 22358-22359 E8-9083 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:

Revised Definition of Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska, 22277-22281 E8-8944 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, CA, 22307-22318 E8-9139 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Revised Definition of Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska, 22318-22320 E8-8945 NOTICES Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Correction to Description of MetOne Instruments, 22362-22363 E8-9089 Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Reports for Nitrogen Dioxide, 22363-22365 E8-9132 Environmental Statements;

Availability, etc., 22365 E8-9075 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Comment Availability, 22365-22366 E8-9074 Guidance for Industry; Availability: EPA White Paper Regarding StarLink Corn Dietary Exposure and Risk, 22716 E8-9003 Integrated Risk Information System Assessments; Availability of Literature Searches for IRIS Assessments, 22366-22367 E8-8885 Meetings: National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, 22367-22368 E8-9125 Notice of Receipt;

Hevea brasiliensis Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; TSCA Section 21 Petition, 22368-22369 E8-9041 Petition Receipt; Formaldehyde Emissions From Composite Wood Products, 22369-22372 E8-9136 Settlement Notice: Smalley-Piper Superfund Site; Collierville, Shelby County, TN, 22372 E8-9129 Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System: Draft Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol mono-Butyl Ether, 22372-22373 E8-9088 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions:

Embraer S.A. EMB-500; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), 22271-22273 E8-9024 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issues, 22454 E8-9060 RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, 22454 E8-9030 RTCA Special Committee 217/EUROCAE Working Group 44, 22454-22455 E8-9044 Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received, 22455 E8-9061 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Application Tendered for Filing With Commission, etc.:

Eric Jacobson, 22359 E8-9022 Environmental Statements; Availability, Etc.: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., et al., 22359-22360 E8-9021 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 22360-22361 E8-9023 Extension of Comment Date: PPL Holtwood, LLC, 22361 E8-9020 Filing: Polytop Corp., 22361 E8-9018 Intent to File License Application, etc.: Gathright Hydroelectric Project, 22361 E8-9019 Issuance of Order: Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., 22362 E8-9017 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway;

Washington, 22455-22456 E8-9059 Federal Law Federal Law Enforcement Training Center NOTICES Meetings: State and Local Training Advisory Committee, 22428 E8-9124 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreement Filed: United States/Australasia Discussion Agreement, 22374 E8-9121 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 22442 E8-8963 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;

Diabetes, 22456-22457 E8-8994 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision, 22458 E8-8987 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations, Acquisitions, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 22374 E8-9052 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22458-22459 E8-8992 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22429-22431 E8-9063 E8-9064 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed, 22720-22758 08-1180 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22423-22424 E8-8973 Guidance for Industry; Availability: EPA White Paper Regarding StarLink Corn Dietary Exposure and Risk, 22716 E8-9003 Withdrawal of Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for Sampling and Testing Yellow Corn and Dry-Millled Yellow Corn Shipments for Cry9C Protein Residues, 22716-22717 E8-8805 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22321-22322 E8-9174 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel; Correction, 22374 E8-8897 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 22374-22398, 22400-22417 E8-8882 E8-8935 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Call for Collaborating Partners for the OWH National Lupus Awareness Campaign, 22417 E8-9110 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Law Enforcement Training Center See Transportation Security Administration See U.S.

Customs and Border Protection Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 22654-22672 E8-8723 Funding Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2007: Demonstration Program for Elderly Housing for Intergenerational Families, 22760-22776 E8-9042 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Gross Estate; Election to Value on Alternate Valuation Date, 22300-22303 E8-9025 Hybrid Retirement Plans;

Correction, 22300 E8-9026 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22465-22466 E8-9027 E8-9028 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Extension of Time for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 22324 E8-9143 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, 22324-22325 E8-9142 Implementation of Grants to Manufacturers of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics, 22325-22326 E8-9098 Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Raw Flexible Magnets From Taiwan, 22332-22337 E8-9141 Raw Flexible Magnets From the People's Republic of China, 22327-22332 E8-9099 Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Peoples’ Republic of China, 22337 E8-9096 Request to Conduct Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 22337-22339 E8-9123 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigation: Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing the Same, 22431-22432 E8-9070 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22432-22433 E8-9097 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations; Revisions, 22289-22294 E8-8948 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: General Motors Corporation, 22459-22460 E8-8989 Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance:

Automobili Lamborghini SpA, 22460-22461 E8-8991 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 22425 E8-9000 E8-9001 E8-9002 E8-9005 Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, 22425-22426 E8-9012 National Advisory Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 22426 E8-9004 National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council, 22426 E8-8985 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 22427 E8-8998 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 22427 E8-8997 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States:

Tilefish Fishery; Quota Harvested for Part-time Category, 22287-22288 08-1184 Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas, 22287 E8-9111 NOTICES Application for Exempted Fishing Permit: General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 22339-22341 E8-9048 E8-9049 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries: Application for Exempted Fishing Permits, 22341 E8-9047 Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Project Plan; Draft Revision, 22341-22342 E8-9062 Issuance of Permit: Marine Mammals (File No. 7741714), 22342-22343 E8-9114 Meetings:

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 22343 E8-9117 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Consideration of Issuance of Amendment: Virginia Electric and Power Company; Surry Power Station (Unit No. 2), 22443-22448 E8-9087 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 22448-22449 E8-9085 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings: Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, 22442 E8-9045 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Request for Nominations:

Public Advisory Committees, 22343-22344 E8-9120 Postal Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Study on Reduced Postal Rates, 22449-22451 E8-9210 Postal Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 22451 E8-8865 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* Loyalty Day (Proc. 8245), 22783-22784 08-1194 National Volunteer Week (Proc. 8244), 22781-22782 08-1193 Older Americans Month (Proc. 8243), 22777-22780 08-1192 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 22451-22452 E8-9107 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Options Clearing Corporation, 22452-22453 E8-9069 State State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, 22453-22454 E8-9091 Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, 22453 E8-9090 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22466-22468 E8-9078 E8-9080 E8-9081 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Transportation Worker Identification Credential:

Enrollment Date for the Port of Hueneme, CA Enrollment Date for the Port of Hueneme, CA, 22429 E8-8988 Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22461-22462 E8-9029 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Approved Commercial Gauger: Intertek Usa, Inc., 22429 E8-9119 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings:

Veterans Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, 22468 E8-8996 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Election Assistance Commission, 22470-22652 E8-8335 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 22654-22672 E8-8723 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 22674-22714 08-1174 Part V Environmental Protection Agency; Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 22716 E8-9003 Part V Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 22716-22717 E8-8805 Part VI Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 22720-22758 08-1180 Part VII Housing and Urban Development Department, 22760-22776 E8-9042 Part VIII Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 22777-22784 08-1192 08-1193 08-1194 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 81 Friday, April 25, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE282, Special Condition 23-282-SC] Special Conditions; Embraer S.A. EMB-500; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to Embraer S.A., for a type certificate for the EMB-500 airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system

(EFIS)displays, Model G1000 manufactured by Garmin, for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 16, 2008. Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE282, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Mark comments: Docket No. CE282. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Identify the regulatory docket or notice number and submit them in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. If you wish the FAA to acknowledge receipt of the comments submitted in response to this notice, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE282.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On October 5, 2005, Embraer S.A, applied to the FAA for a new type certificate for the EMB-500 airplane. The proposed airplane incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the EMB-500 aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the project certification basis: 14 CFR part 23 at Amendment 55; 14 CFR part 34 at Amendment 3; 14 CFR part 36 at Amendment 27; Equivalent Levels of Safety for

(ELOS)issued at the time of type certification; any special conditions issued at the time of type certification, as applicable, and § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Embraer S.A. plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. *Protection of Systems From High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF):* Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: Frequency Field strength (volts per meter) Peak Average 10 kHz-100 kHz 50 50 100 kHz-500 kHz 50 50 500 kHz-2 MHz 50 50 2 MHz-30 MHz 100 100 30 MHz-70 MHz 50 50 70 MHz-100 MHz 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz 100 100 200 MHz-400 MHz 100 100 400 MHz-700 MHz 700 50 700 MHz-1 GHz 700 100 1 GHz-2 GHz 2000 200 2 GHz-4 GHz 3000 200 4 GHz-6 GHz 3000 200 6 GHz-8 GHz 1000 200 8 GHz-12 GHz 3000 300 12 GHz-18 GHz 2000 200 18 GHz-40 GHz 600 200 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square

(rms)values. or,

(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the EMB-500 project. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the EMB-500 airplane manufactured by Embraer S.A. to include an EFIS. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April 16, 2008. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9024 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2007-0012; T.D. TTB-69; Re: Notice No. 63] RIN 1513-AB20 Establishment of the Swan Creek Viticultural Area (2005R-414P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes the “Swan Creek” viticultural area in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville Street, No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, elevation, physical features, and soils, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey

(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Swan Creek Viticultural Area Background Raffaldini Vineyards submitted a petition to establish the 96,000-acre “Swan Creek” viticultural area on behalf of the Vineyards of Swan Creek, a trade association representing a group of vineyards and wineries in northwestern North Carolina. Three wineries and 75 acres of vineyards are located within the proposed Swan Creek viticulture area. The boundary of the proposed viticultural area incorporates portions of Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties and includes a portion of the established Yadkin Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.174). We summarize below the evidence submitted in support of the petition. Name and Boundary Evidence The petitioner explains that the geographical name “Swan Creek” refers to a village in the approximate center of the proposed viticultural area, as well as a Yadkin River tributary creek system. As shown in the southwest portion of the provided 1:100,000-scale USGS Winston-Salem, North Carolina topographic map, Swan Creek village sits in the Brushy Mountains south of the Yadkin River. East and West Swan Creeks run north from the mountains before joining together as Swan Creek to the northwest of the village. The creek then empties into the Yadkin River approximately three miles west of Jonesville. Also, an undated State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources document lists Swan Creek, West Swan Creek, and East Swan Creek as streams in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The DeLorme North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer identifies the village as “Swancreek,” with East Swan Creek and West Swan Creek to its northwest. The petitioner explains that both names, “Swan Creek” and “Swancreek,” reference the proposed viticultural area region. However, the two-word spelling is the more common usage for businesses, roads, creeks, and historical documents, which led the petitioner to identify the proposed viticultural area as “Swan Creek.” As further evidence of the significance of the “Swan Creek” name within the proposed area, the local Wilkes Telephone Membership Corp. telephone book, which covers the region that includes the proposed viticultural area, lists an airport, a church, and three businesses using “Swan Creek” in their names. Also, the September 7, 2004, minutes of a Yadkin County Commission meeting includes a reference to the Swan Creek area and improvements to Swan Creek Road. Additionally, a National Weather Service bulletin from January 13, 2005, warns of the possibility of a tornado in the Swan Creek area. The name is also repeatedly used in the “Vineyards of Swan Creek Wine Trail” Web site ( *http://www.swancreekvineyards.com* ). The petitioner relies on geographical and man-made elements identifiable on the supplied USGS maps to define and draw the boundary for the proposed viticultural area. Climate data and historic evidence that documents the breadth of the “Swan Creek” name also legitimize the proposed boundary line, according to the petitioner. From the regional history of the Yadkin Valley, the petitioner connects the “Swan Creek” name to stories of Revolutionary War soldiers traveling along the Yadkin River, the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's northern boundary line, while en route to the pivotal battle at King's Mountain in South Carolina. Also, during the Civil War, Union Major General George Stoneman led troops through the Swan Creek region to Virginia. Historic manuscripts maintain that frontiersman Daniel Boone homesteaded in the Swan Creek region in the 1750s. According to the petition, farming become more prominent in the Swan Creek area after the Civil War, the Swan Creek area, and agriculture continues to characterize this rural region. Today, agriculture in the Swan Creek region includes viticulture, with 75 acres within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area currently dedicated to grape growing. The geology of the Swan Creek region, along with its minor climatic variation, also creates distinguishing viticultural features upon which to base the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's boundary. The entire proposed viticultural area lies within the Yadkin River Basin. The general uniformity in the Swan Creek region's soils is attributable to the natural weathering process of the Brushy Mountains and the Brevard Shear Zone, a major fault system that also defines the Blue Ridge Escarpment in the area. The homogeneous soil within the proposed viticultural area is unlike the varied soils and rock types found in other parts of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area boundary overlaps the established Yadkin Valley viticultural area as shown in the table below. Viticultural areas Total acres Overlapping acres Percent overlapping Yadkin Valley 1,416,000 57,600 4 Swan Creek (Proposed) 96,000 57,600 60 The northern 60 percent of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area sits within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, with the remaining 40 percent south of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area boundary line, according to the petition maps. The discussion below includes evidence regarding the differences between the established Yadkin Valley viticultural area and the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, which, according to the petitioner, justifies the proposed boundary line. Distinguishing Features Situated in the moderate elevations of the Brushy Mountains, and bordering the Yadkin River on the north, the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's geographical location is responsible for the area's temperate climate and homogenous soil as compared to surrounding areas, according to the petitioner. Topography The Brushy Mountains run through the center of the Swan Creek region, with elevations in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area varying between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet, according to the USGS maps submitted with the petition. Within the proposed viticultural area the Brushy Mountains have elevations lower than the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west but higher than the other surrounding areas. The Blue Ridge Mountain region to the immediate west of the proposed boundary line rises to elevations of 3,000 to 5,000 feet. To the east and south of the proposed viticultural area, the elevation drops to between 500 and 1,000 feet. Climate Both the Yadkin River, which serves as the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's northern boundary line, and that portion of the Brushy Mountains located within the proposed viticultural area serve as climatically moderating influences. The Swan Creek region has an average annual high temperature of 68.9 °F and an average annual low temperature of 42.8 °F. The table below shows the contrasting temperatures in the regions beyond the proposed viticultural area's boundary line, as collected by the Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC) of the National Climatic Data Center. Region Average annual maximum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Average annual minimum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Swan Creek 68.9 42.8 West and northwest 59.8 40.4 South and east 70.6 46.6 Yadkin Valley 69.5 44.8 The SERCC data shows that the Swan Creek area is generally warmer than the regions to the west and northwest, cooler than the regions to the south and east, and slightly cooler than the Yadkin Valley as a whole. Also, average January temperatures of 20° F to 25° F make the Swan Creek region less prone to Pierce's Disease, which adversely affects vineyards, than the majority of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 3,576 degree days of heat accumulation annually, which puts it in climatic region IV, according to temperature data collected by the SERCC. (As a measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, one degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. (See “General Viticulture,” by Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974.) The surrounding areas, based on Amerine and Winkler heat summation definitions, include climatic regions IV and V to the east, region V to the south, and region I to the west-northwest. The frost-free season of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area extends on average from April 19 to October 17 annually, according to the “Average Last Spring Frost Dates for Selected North Carolina Locations,” horticulture information leaflets (published December 1996 and revised December 1998), by Katharine Perry, North Carolina State University. According to the petition, this frost-free season is nearly identical to Surry County, which is part of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area located immediately northeast of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. However, southeast of the proposed viticultural area, but also within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, the Davidson County frost-free season runs on average from March 31 to October 31, resulting in a month less frost than in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. The frost-free season varies in counties outside the Yadkin Valley viticultural area and the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, extending three weeks longer to the east and lasting four to six weeks less in regions to the west and northwest. The growing season of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 170 to 190 days annually, according to Perry's “Average Growing Seasons for Selected North Carolina Locations,” horticulture information leaflets (published December 1996 and revised December 1998). Again, this growing season is almost identical to Surry County, located immediately northeast within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. However, according to Perry's data, Davidson County averages a 214-day growing season annually, or between 24 and 44 more growing days than the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. Similarly, the petition shows that Guilford County to the east has an annual growing season of between 199 and 210 days. Counties to the west and northwest of the Swan Creek region have a significantly shorter growing season, lasting an average of 139 to 162 days. Precipitation The petitioner attributes the moderate rainfall within the proposed viticultural area to the protective influence of the Brushy Mountains. Rainfall within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 48.6 inches annually, based on SERCC data, with the local grape growers surveyed by the petitioner recording less rainfall at their own weather stations. The areas to the west and northwest of the proposed viticultural area average 57 inches each year, while regions to the south and east average 44.4 inches of rain annually. Furthermore, snowfall within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 6.3 inches annually, based on SERCC records, which is far less than the data recorded at weather stations in surrounding areas. Geology The documentation and evidence provided for the petition by Matthew Mayberry of the Mayberry Land Company, Elkin, North Carolina, indicate that the geology of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area is shaped by plate tectonics and a spectrum of uplift and erosion for the entire Appalachian Mountains building cycle. The Swan Creek region is part of the larger Appalachian Mountain Range area that has gone through at least three cycles of uplift and erosion, with each cycle lasting around 300 million years. Also, the weathering and erosion cycles created the resulting Piedmont and Blue Ridge surfaces found in the proposed viticultural area today. Mr. Mayberry explains that the four predominant rock types in the proposed viticultural area are Henderson Gneiss, Granite, Biotite Gneiss and Biotite Amphibolite Gneiss, and Sillimanite Mica Schist. These types underlay more than 90 percent of the Swan Creek area, with the latter three predominant in the southern half of the area. Along the proposed north boundary line at the Yadkin River the predominant rock types include Ashe Formation, Utramafics, and Granitic Rocks of the Crossnore Group. Soil The soil information in the Swan Creek viticultural area petition is compiled from the published soil surveys of Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties in North Carolina. Roy Mathis, Soil Specialist for Correlations, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, provided the soil information included in the petition. The areas surrounding the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area have soils with differing characteristics, Mr. Mathis explains. The areas to the south and east have high shrink-swell clayey soils, which are less desirable for agriculture. To the west and north are the mountainous rocks and soils of the encroaching Blue Ridge Mountains. Also, the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, which surrounds the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area to the west, north, and east, has a greater variety of soil types and temperature regimes. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area mesic temperature regime has soil temperatures of 47 °F to 59 °F at the depth of 20 inches, according to Mr. Mathis. In comparison, the Yadkin Valley viticultural area is in both the mesic and thermic temperature regimes, with much warmer soil temperatures at the same depth that range from 59 °F to 72 °F at the same soil depth. Mr. Mathis explains that the soils in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area are primarily saprolite, a soft, clay-rich soil derived from weathered felsic (acidic) metamorphic rocks of the Inner Piedmont Belt such as granites, schists, and gneisses. The region includes a small area of Sauratown Belt with the rocks being primarily metagraywacke. In contrast, the surrounding west and north areas include residuum (saprolite) weathered from felsic metamorphic rocks such as gneisses, schists, and phyllites of the Blue Ridge Geologic Belt and Smith River Allochothon. The saprolite in the surrounding area to the east is composed of weathered igneous intrusive rocks like granites, gabbros, and diorites, as well as some gneisses and schists of the Charlotte Belt. Evard and Cowee soils, which have moderate permeability and are well-drained with a loamy surface and sub-soil layer, predominate in the Brushy Mountains. The dominant ridge top soils of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area also include the Fairview and Clifford series. These soils have sandy clay loam or clay loam surface layers with red clayey sub-soils, and are well-drained with moderate permeability. Rhodhiss series is the dominant soil on the steep side slopes within the proposed viticultural area boundary. This well-drained soil has a loamy surface and moderate permeability at the sub-soil level. Mr. Mathis notes that Fairview, Clifford, and Rhodhiss soils all have bedrock deeper than 60 inches. The Yadkin River, at the northern boundary of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, has alluvial soil diversity with textures and drainage. In general, most of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area soils are acidic and low in natural fertility. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received TTB published Notice No. 63 regarding the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area in the **Federal Register** on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53612). In response to that notice, we received one comment supporting establishment of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area from U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area. Although a portion of the proposed viticultural area falls within the boundary of the existing Yadkin Valley viticultural area, and notwithstanding the fact that the two areas share some common features, we believe that the submitted evidence regarding climate and soil type and temperature supports the conclusion that the proposed new viticultural area is sufficiently different from the rest of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. We also believe that establishment of the new viticultural area without changing the boundary of the existing viticultural area to exclude the overlap area would best protect labels and other commercial interests of existing viticultural entities within the overlap area. Accordingly, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we establish the “Swan Creek” American viticultural area in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in the regulatory text published at the end of this document. Maps The maps for determining the boundary of the viticultural area are listed below in the regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB regulations, its name, “Swan Creek,” is recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. The text of the new regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Swan Creek” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term specified as having viticultural significance in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance as an appellation of origin and that name or other term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N. A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend title 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Amend subpart C by adding § 9.211 to read as follows: § 9.211 Swan Creek.

(a)*Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Swan Creek”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Swan Creek” is a term of viticultural significance.

(b)*Approved Maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the Swan Creek viticultural area are three United States Geological Survey

(USGS)1:100,000 scale topographic maps. They are titled:

(1)Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 1984, photoinspected 1982;

(2)Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee, 1985; and

(3)Salisbury, North Carolina, 1985, photoinspected 1983.

(c)*Boundary.* The Swan Creek viticultural area is located in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina. The boundary of the Swan Creek viticultural area is as described below:

(1)The beginning point is on the Winston-Salem, North Carolina map at the intersection of the Yadkin River and U.S. Highway 21, along the Surry-Yadkin county line, between Elkin and Jonesville;

(2)From the beginning point, proceed 24.6 miles generally south on U.S. Highway 21, crossing onto the Salisbury, North Carolina map, to the intersection of U.S. Highway 21 with Rocky Creek at Turnersburg; then

(3)Proceed 12.3 miles generally north and west along Rocky Creek, returning to the Winston-Salem map, to the intersection of Rocky Creek with State Highway 115 at New Hope in the southwest corner of the map; then

(4)Proceed 15.5 miles generally northwest along State Highway 115, crossing onto the Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee map, to the intersection of State Highway 115 and the Yadkin River, at North Wilkesboro; and

(5)Proceed 16.7 miles generally east-northeast along the Yadkin River, crossing onto the Winston-Salem map, and return to the beginning point. Signed: January 18, 2008. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: March 13, 2008. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E8-9106 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0001] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Chelsea and East Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the P.J. McArdle Bridge across the Chelsea River, mile 0.3, between Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the annual Chelsea River Revel and 5K Road Race. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position during the running of the 5K Road Race. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on June 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0001 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, the City of Boston, requested this temporary deviation. The P.J. McArdle Bridge, across the Chelsea River at mile 0.3, between Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.593. This deviation which allows the bridge to remain closed is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on June 14, 2008. Vessels able to pass under the closed draw may do so at any time. Tankers, and tug and barge units transit Chelsea Creek under the McArdle Bridge. Waterway users were advised of the requested bridge closure period and offered no objection. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: April 17, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-8993 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071; FRL-8557-8] RIN 2060-AN94 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Revised Definition of Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final interpretive rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise an interpretive rule defining the term “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline as that phrase is used in section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). To meet the current definition, fuel or fuel additives must possess, at the time of manufacture, all of the physical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified in the standard. EPA is amending the definition to allow some additional flexibility for the vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska in order to improve cold starting for vehicles during the winter months in Alaska. DATES: This rule is effective on June 24, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 27, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(202)566-9744 • *Mail:* Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

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

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

(202)566-1742). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaimee Dong, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)343-9672; fax number:

(202)343-2800; e-mail address: *Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule? EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule 1 because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the definition of “substantially similar.” If adverse comments are received on this direct final rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. 1 EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct notice and comment rulemaking when amending this interpretive rule. *See APA section 553(b)(A); CAA section 307(d)* . However, as it has done when previously amending this rule, EPA desires to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on this amendment. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. II. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production or importation of unleaded gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories and entities affected by this action include: Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 324110 2911 Petroleum refiners. Industry 422710 5171 Gasoline marketers and distributors. 422720 5172 Industry 484220 4212 Gasoline carriers. 484230 4213 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC)system code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action; however, other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of Parts 79 and 80 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 3. *Docket Copying Costs* . You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided by 40 CFR Part 2. III. Statutory Background Section 211(f)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of a fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. An EPA interpretive rule, published at 46 FR 38582 (July 28, 1981) and amended at 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991), defines the term “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline. Under this definition, unleaded gasoline that meets several conditions, including complying with the physical and chemical specifications of ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility classes specified in the standard, is considered substantially similar. Further conditions are described in the interpretive rule and its amendment. IV. Need for Action Discussions with an Alaskan refiner have highlighted the need for an amendment to the definition of “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline. Currently, manufacturers of gasoline for Alaska may not use a temperature below 41 degrees Celsius when testing the vapor-liquid (V/L) ratio of the fuel and still be within the current definition of “substantially similar.” This amendment will allow manufacturers producing unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska during the winter months to use a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius when testing for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 instead of requiring a V/L test temperature of 41 degrees Celsius. ASTM D 2533 is a test method that covers a procedure for measuring the volume of vapor formed at atmospheric pressure from a given volume of gasoline. The ratio of these volumes is expressed as the V/L ratio of the gasoline at the temperature of the test. The tendency of a fuel to vaporize in common automobile fuel systems is indicated by the V/L ratio of that fuel at conditions approximating those in critical parts of the fuel system. Allowing a lower test temperature means that the vapor fraction of the fuel may be higher. The extreme cold of Alaska during the winter months increases the risk that engines using typical gasoline blends will suffer from difficulty in cold starting. A higher vapor fraction improves mixing of the fuel with air, which in turn improves cold starting. Because the automotive fuel system is closed, the lower test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius compared to 41 degrees Celsius in the winter months is unlikely to significantly increase evaporative emissions. In addition, Alaska presently does not possess ozone non-attainment areas, most likely due to the cold temperatures observed in Alaska. Therefore, in the Agency's judgment, the impact on emissions will not be significant and this increased flexibility will allow refiners to provide a fuel more suitable to the climatic conditions of Alaska. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the *Paperwork Reduction Act* , 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). No information is collected as a result of this amendment to the “substantially similar” interpretive rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act This interpretive rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because it is an interpretive rule. *See APA section 553(b)(A); CAA section 307(d))* . Although this interpretive rule is not subject to the RFA, EPA nonetheless has assessed the potential of this rule to adversely impact small entities subject to the rule. Small entity is defined as:

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

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

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

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final interpretive rule on small entities, the Agency does not believe that this action is likely to have an adverse economic impact on small entities. This final action amends the “substantially similar” interpretive rule by allowing a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 from September 16 to May 31 for unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska. This change is intended to improve cold starting in automobiles during the winter months in Alaska by allowing production and sale in Alaska during the winter season of unleaded gasoline with a higher volatility. This amendment to the interpretive rule does not impose a regulatory burden on anyone, including small businesses. Instead, this final action will have a positive impact, enabling all manufacturers, including small manufacturers, to produce and market this gasoline in Alaska. We therefore believe that today's final interpretive rule should have a positive economic impact on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this interpretive rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This final action will amend the “substantially similar” interpretive rule by allowing a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 from September 16 to May 31 for unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska, instead of requiring a test temperature of 41 degrees Celsius. Thus, today's interpretive rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final interpretive rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final action will amend the “substantially similar” interpretive rule by allowing a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 from September 16 to May 31 for unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska. The requirements of this amendment will be enforced by the federal government at the national level. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this interpretive rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final interpretive rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This interpretive rule will apply to gasoline refiners and importers of gasoline. This final action changes the volatility standards for gasoline in Alaska, and will not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this interpretive rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This interpretive rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This interpretive rulemaking involves technical standards. This final action will amend the “substantially similar” interpretive rule by allowing a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 from September 16 to May 31 for unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska. The test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius may be found in Table 3, Vapor Lock Protection Class 6, of ASTM D4814-04a. All technical standards included in today's amendment to the “substantially similar” interpretive rule are standards developed by ASTM, a voluntary consensus standards body, and thus raise no issues under the NTTAA. ASTM D4814-04a may be obtained from ASTM International at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or *service@astm.org* (e-mail); or through the ASTM Web site ( *http://www.astm.org* ). J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final interpretive rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final interpretive rule will amend the “substantially similar” interpretive rule by allowing a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 from September 16 to May 31 for unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska. This interpretive rule amendment does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective June 24, 2008. Dated: April 17, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth above, EPA is amending the definition of substantially similar as follows: Definition—Substantially Similar EPA will treat a fuel or fuel additive for general use in light-duty vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 as substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year vehicle or engine, under section 206 of the Act, i.e., “substantially similar,” if the following criteria are met.

(1)The fuel must contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur, exclusively, 2 in the form of some combination of the following: 2 Impurities which produce gaseous combustion products (i.e., products which exist as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure) may be present in the fuel at trace levels. An impurity is that substance which is present through contamination, or remains naturally, after processing of the fuel is completed.

(a)Hydrocarbons;

(b)Aliphatic ethers;

(c)Aliphatic alcohols other than methanol; (d)(i) Up to 0.3 percent methanol by volume;

(ii)Up to 2.75 percent methanol by volume with an equal volume of butanol, or higher molecular weight alcohol;

(e)A fuel additive 3 at a concentration of no more than 0.25 percent by weight which contributes no more than 15 ppm sulfur by weight to the fuel. 3 For the purposes of this interpretive rule, the term “fuel additive” refers only to that part of the additive package which is not hydrocarbon.

(2)The fuel must contain no more than 2.0 percent oxygen by weight, except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) must contain no more than 2.7 percent oxygen by weight.

(3)The fuel must possess, at the time of manufacture, all of the physical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified in the standard, with the exception of fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska. For fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska, all of the requirements of this section

(3)apply, with the exception of the test temperature for a maximum Vapor/Liquid Ratio (V/L) of 20, which shall be a minimum of 35 °C (95 °F) for the period from September 16 through May 31.

(4)The fuel additive must contain only carbon, hydrogen, and any one or all of the following elements: Oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur. 4 4 Impurities which produce gaseous combustion products may be present in the fuel additive at trace levels. [FR Doc. E8-8944 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 45 CFR Part 148 [CMS-2260-F] RIN 0938-A046 Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High Risk Pools AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the interim final rule with comment period that was published on July 27, 2007, regarding extended funding for seed and operational grants for State High Risk Pools under the Public Health Service Act. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective May 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Kahn,

(410)786-9361, or John Young,

(410)786-0505. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210) added section 2745 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to provide for two types of grants to States for the promotion of “qualified high risk pools.” These pools provide health coverage to high-risk individuals who may find private health insurance unavailable or unaffordable. Under this provision, a pool could meet the definition of a “qualified” high risk pool for purposes of section 2745 only if it met the definition of a qualified high risk pool in section 2744(c)(2) of the PHS Act. Section 2744 deals with how States can satisfy the requirement of section 2741 of the PHS Act to guarantee access to health coverage for individuals who meet the definition of an “eligible individual” under section 2741, as added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These individuals are commonly referred to as “HIPAA-eligible” individuals. Under section 2744(c)(2) of the PHS Act, a qualified high risk pool must provide health coverage without a pre-existing condition exclusion to “all” HIPAA-eligible individuals. This meant that State high risk pools that did not allow all HIPAA-eligible individuals into the pool without a pre-existing condition exclusion could not meet the definition of a “qualified” risk pool. The two types of grants authorized by the legislation were “seed grants” for States that had not yet created a high risk pool, and “operational” grants to offset losses incurred by States that operate a qualified high risk pool. Under the prior law, in order for a risk pool to qualify for an operational grant, it could not charge premiums that exceeded 150 percent of the premium for applicable standard risk rates. Moreover, the amount of the grants was limited to 50 percent of the losses incurred by a State. Section 6202 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171)

(DRA)and the State High Risk Pool Extension Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-172) (Extension Act) extended funding for seed and operational grants for State High Risk Pools and amended section 2745 of the PHS Act. The Extension Act made the following changes: 1. Expanded the definition of a “qualified high risk pool.” As noted above, section 2745(d) of the PHS Act previously defined the term to have the same meaning as in section 2744(c)(2) of the PHS Act, which required that the risk pool provide coverage to “all” HIPAA-eligible individuals (as defined in § 148.103), without any pre-existing condition exclusion. The revised definition specifies that, for purposes of grants under section 2745, a risk pool can be qualified even if the State uses other mechanisms beyond the risk pool to ensure that health coverage is provided to all HIPAA-eligibles. 2. Expanded the definition of “State.” Section 2745 of the PHS Act previously defined this term to include only the 50 States and the District of Columbia, but has now been amended to include U.S. Territories. 3. Increased the amount of premiums that a risk pool can charge and still qualify for an operational grant. Section 2745 of the PHS Act previously required that the premiums charged under the pool not exceed 150 percent of the premium for applicable standard risk rates. As amended, it permits grants to States with premiums of up to 200 percent of the standard risk rates, as long as States with premiums greater than 150 percent of the standard rate use at least half of the grant funds to reduce high risk pool premiums for enrollees. 4. Removed the limitation that a State's grant not exceed 50 percent of its operating losses. 5. Changed the funding allotment formula. Previously, the grant funds were to be allotted to States under a relatively simple formula based on the number of uninsured individuals in the State. Under the new legislation, the allotment formula is more complex. Of the total appropriation for a given year—if money is appropriated—two-thirds would be available for grants to cover operational losses. Of these funds, 40 percent is to be equally divided among any of the 50 States and the District of Columbia that apply. Another 30 percent of that amount is allotted among all States that apply for grants based on the ratio of uninsured individuals in the State to uninsured individuals in all States that apply. The final 30 percent is to be allotted based on the ratio of the number of individuals enrolled in a State's risk pool to the number enrolled through the risk pools of all the qualifying States that apply. (Territories are eligible for the proportional allotments, but only up to a total of $1 million for all Territories combined.) 6. Provided authority for “bonus grants” to States (not including Territories) that qualify for operational grants. One-third of a total yearly appropriation will be used to provide grants to enable States to provide specified supplemental consumer benefits to enrollees or potential enrollees of the qualified high risk pool. (A bonus grant is not to exceed 10 percent of the total for any one State.) This final rule updates our regulations at 45 CFR Part 148, Subpart E, Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High Risk Pools, to implement the changes made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the State High Risk Pool Extension Act of 2006. Specific instructions about the grant solicitation and award process will be addressed in official grant announcements or other appropriate documents. II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule On July 27, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** an interim final rule with comment period (72 FR 41232). In that rule we revised the regulation text in 45 CFR part 148 to conform with the State High Risk Pool Extension Act of 2006 and the DRA. These revisions are discussed in detail below. A. Definitions (§ 148.308) We amended § 148.308 (Definitions) to • Add a definition of “bonus grants.” • Revise the definition of “qualified high risk pool;” and • Revise the definition of “State.” 1. Bonus Grant We added the following definition for Bonus Grants—Funds that the Secretary provides from the appropriated grant funds to be used to provide supplemental consumer benefits to enrollees or potential enrollees in qualified high risk pools. 2. Qualified High Risk Pool We amended the definition at § 148.308 to reflect the exception added by the Extension Act in section 2745(g)(1)(A) of the PHS Act. Specifically, a State may elect to meet the definition of a qualified high risk pool under § 148.128(a)(2)(ii)(A) by providing for enrollment of eligible individuals through an acceptable alternative mechanism (as defined for purposes of section 2744 of the PHS) that includes a high risk pool as a component. 3. State In accordance with the Extension Act, we amended the definition to include any of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. B. Grants for Operational Losses (§ 148.310) 1. Eligibility Requirements for an Operational Grant This section specifies the eligibility requirements for operational grants. A State must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a grant: a. *Maximum premium.* We amended § 148.310 to reflect that the statute has increased the maximum premium that a risk pool can charge and still qualify for a grant. The maximum has been changed from 150 percent to 200 percent of the premium for applicable standard risk rates for the State. b. *Continued funding.* The statute previously required that the pool have in effect a mechanism reasonably designed to ensure continued funding of losses incurred by the State after the end of FY 2004, which was the last year that grants were authorized under the prior appropriation. The statute, as revised by the Extension Act, now requires that a risk pool have such a mechanism to ensure funding after the end of the last fiscal year for which a grant is provided. We interpret this to mean that the pool has capacity or mechanisms in place that can reasonably be expected to ensure that it may operate in the future without the benefit of Federal funding. In the case of a qualified high risk pool of a State that charges premiums that exceed 150 percent of the premium for applicable standard risks, the State must use at least 50 percent of the amount of the grant provided to the State to reduce premiums for enrollees. The application should demonstrate/attest that the funds will be used this way. 2. Amount of Grant Payment (§ 148.312) Two-thirds of any amounts appropriated are made available for operational grants. An eligible State may receive a grant to fund up to 100 percent of the losses incurred in the operation of its qualified high risk pool during the fiscal year for which it is applying. The grant may be less than 100 percent after the allotment limits are applied, but in no case will it be more than 100 percent. Funds will be allocated in accordance with § 148.312 to each State that meets the eligibility requirements of § 148.310 and files an application in accordance with § 148.316. Specifically: • Forty percent of funds made available under that section will be equally divided among any of the 50 States and the District of Columbia that meet the eligibility criteria for an operational grant; • Thirty percent of funds made available will be divided among States (including territories) based on the number of uninsured residents in the State during the specified year as compared to the total number of uninsured residents in all States that apply for grants; • Thirty percent will be divided among States (including territories) based on the number of people in State high risk pools during the specified year as compared to all States that apply. In accordance with the statute, in no case will the aggregate amount allotted and made available to the U.S. Territories for a fiscal year exceed $1 million. We will calculate the number of uninsured individuals for each eligible State by taking a 3-year average of the number of uninsured individuals in that State in the Current Population Survey

(CPS)of the Census Bureau. The 3-year average will be calculated using numbers available as of March 1 of each year for the preceding 3-year period. C. Bonus Grants One-third of the total appropriation will be available for the bonus grants. These grants will be available to any one of the 50 States and the District of Columbia that receives an operational grant under § 148.310. The grants must be used to provide one or more of the following benefits:

(1)Low income premium subsidies;

(2)Reduction in premium trends, actual premium or other cost-sharing requirements;

(3)An expansion or broadening of the pool of individuals eligible for coverage, such as through eliminating waiting lists, increasing enrollment caps, or providing flexibility in enrollment rules;

(4)Less stringent rules or additional waiver authority with respect to coverage of pre-existing conditions;

(5)Increased benefits; and

(6)The establishment of disease management programs. In no case will a State receive bonus grants that exceed 10 percent of the total funds allotted for bonus grants in that fiscal year. D. Periods During Which Eligible States May Apply for a Grant (§ 148.314) Funds were appropriated for Federal FY 2006 and are authorized for FY 2008 through FY 2010. Funding for FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010 under the Extension Act requires subsequent enactment of appropriations authority. States will be unable to apply for grants unless and until such funding becomes available. A State that meets the eligibility requirements in § 148.310 may apply for a grant to fund losses that were incurred during the State's or pool's fiscal year ending prior to or during any federal fiscal year, 2007 through 2010 for which authorized funds are appropriated, in connection with the operation of its qualified high risk pool. Grant funding is administered on a retrospective basis (for example, pools with losses incurred in 2005 may apply for Federal FY 2006 grant funds). If a State becomes eligible for a grant in the middle of its fiscal year, a State may apply for losses incurred in a partial fiscal year if a partial year audit is done. Only losses that are incurred after it is established that a pool is eligible (that is, that it is a qualified high risk pool as defined by § 148.128(a)(2)(ii)) will qualify for a grant. An eligible State must apply for a grant no later than June 30 following the end of the State fiscal year during which it incurred losses. Each State may only be awarded one grant per fiscal year. A grant for a partial fiscal year counts as a full grant. States that meet all of the eligibility requirements in § 148.310 and submit timely requests in accordance with paragraph

(c)of § 148.314 will receive distribution of grant funds using the following methodology: • Grant applications for losses will be on a retrospective basis. For example, grant applications for 2006 funds are based on the State's FY 2005 incurred losses. • Grant allocations for each fiscal year will be determined by taking all grant applications received by June 30 of the Federal fiscal year and allocating grant funds in accordance with § 148.312. In no case will a State receive funds greater than 100 percent of its losses. If any excess funds remain after the initial calculation, these excess funds will be proportionately redistributed to the States whose allocations have not exceeded 100 percent of their losses. This process will occur at the time of the initial calculation and there will be one annual allocation and distribution by September 30 of each year. Grant Application Instructions (§ 148.316) We amended § 148.316 to reflect the addition of application requirements for bonus grants. We changed the heading of § 148.316(a), “Application package,” to “Application for operational losses.” We inserted a bonus grants section by redesignating § 148.316(a)(3) as § 148.316(a)(4) and adding new paragraph (a)(3), the bonus grants requirements. The individual State applying for a bonus grant must provide:

(i)A narrative description with detailed information about each one of the following supplemental consumer benefits to be provided to enrollees and/or potential enrollees in the high risk pool:

(A)Low income premium subsidies;

(B)Reduction in premium trends, actual premium or other cost-sharing requirements;

(C)An expansion or broadening of the pool of individuals eligible for coverage, such as through eliminating waiting lists, increasing enrollment caps, or providing flexibility in enrollment;

(D)Less stringent rules, or additional waiver authority with respect to coverage of pre-existing conditions;

(E)Increased benefits; and

(F)The establishment of disease management programs.

(ii)A description of the population or subset population that will be eligible for the supplemental consumer benefits.

(iii)A projected budget for the use of bonus grant funds using the SF 424 and SF 424 A. We revised the “Standard forms application kit” in § 148.316(b). We eliminated the text “Additional Assurances” in “Standard forms application kit,” paragraph (b)(1)(i). We also changed the Web site URL address for the “Standard forms kit” download at paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to *http://www.grants.gov.* There are no other changes to the content of the “Standard forms application kit.” In § 148.316(c), “Submission of application package,” we deleted paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) and replaced with text that will read: All applications should be submitted electronically via *http://www.grants.gov.* In § 148.316(d), “Application deadlines,” we changed the applications deadlines text to read: The deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in a State fiscal year is June 30 of the next Federal fiscal year that begins after the end of the State fiscal year. In § 148.316(e), “Where to submit an application,” we changed the text to read: Applications must be submitted to *http://www.grants.gov.* Funding Mechanism ( § 148.318) We amended § 148.318, dealing with continued funding of a risk pool. The State must outline funding sources, such as assessments and State general revenues, which can cover the projected costs and are reasonably designed to ensure continued funding of losses a State incurs in connection with the operation of the qualified high risk pool after the last fiscal year for which it is applying for grant funds. Grant Awards ( § 148.320) We amended this section to specify that the grantee will be required to submit quarterly progress and financial reports under part 92 of this title and in accordance with section 2745(f) of the Public Health Service Act, requiring the Secretary to make an annual report to Congress that includes information on the use of these grant funds by the States. III. Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments and Provisions of the Final Regulations We did not receive any public comments on the July 27, 2007 interim final rule with comment period. Therefore, this final rule implements the provisions of the interim final rule without change. IV. Collection of Information Requirement Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 30-day notice in the **Federal Register** and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA)requires that we solicit comment on the following issues: • The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency. • The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden. • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques. We are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the following sections of this document that contain information collection requirements (ICRs): Section 148.316 Grant Application Instructions Section 148.316(a) requires each State to compile an application package that documents that it has met the requirements for a grant. If a risk pool entity applies on behalf of a State, it must provide documentation that it has been delegated appropriate authority by the State. The burden associated with this requirement is subject to the PRA; however, the structure of the application collection and grant monitoring reporting requirements of the grants has not been changed from the original grants program and is currently approved under OMB control number 0938-0887 “Matching Grants to States for the Operation of High Risk Pools and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR 148.316, 148.318, and 148.320” with a current expiration date of 01/31/2010. We are, however, revising this package to include the additional request under 148.316(a)(3) for

(1)Description of Type of Consumer Benefits;

(2)Description of the Eligible Population for the consumer benefits; and,

(3)Projected Budget for the use of Bonus Grants. We believe the burden associated with the additional information is already captured in the currently approved OMB package (#0938-0887). Section 148.320 Grant Awards Section 148.320(a)(2)(iii) states that a grantee is required to submit quarterly progress and financial reports under part 92 of this title and in accordance with section 2745(f) of the Public Health Service Act, requiring the Secretary to make an annual report to Congress that includes information on the use of these grant funds by States. The burden associated with this requirement is the time it would take for a grantee to submit quarterly progress and financial reports. We estimate it will take one grantee 1 hour per quarter to comply with this requirement. If you comment on these information collection and record keeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attn.: Melissa Musotto, CMS-2260-IFC, Room C5-14-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Katherine Astrich, CMS Desk Officer, CMS-2260-IFC, *katherine_astrich@omb.eop.gov* . Fax

(202)395-6974. V. Regulatory Impact Statement We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis

(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We did not prepare an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 148 Administrative practice and procedure, Health care Health insurance, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 45 CFR chapter IV as set forth below: PART 148—REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET 1. The authority citation for part 148 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2741 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92). Subpart E—Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High Risk Pools 2. Section 148.306 is revised to read as follows: § 148.306 Basis and scope. This subpart implements section 2745 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). It extends grants to States that have qualified high risk pools that meet the specific requirements described in § 148.310. It also provides specific instructions on how to apply for the grants and outlines the grant review and grant award processes. 3. Section 148.308 is amended by— A. Revising the definition for “bonus grants.” B. Revising the definition of “qualified high risk pool.” C. Revising the definition of “State.” The revisions read as follows: § 148.308 Definitions. *Bonus grants* means funds that the Secretary provides from the appropriated grant funds to be used to provide supplemental consumer benefits to enrollees or potential enrollees in qualified high risk pools. *Qualified high risk pool* as defined in sections 2744(c)(2) and 2745(g) of the PHS Act means a risk pool that—

(1)Provides to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage (or comparable coverage) that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage for all eligible individuals, except that it may provide for enrollment of eligible individuals through an acceptable alternative mechanism (as defined for purposes of section 2744 of the PHS Act) that includes a high risk pool as a component; and

(2)Provides for premium rates and covered benefits for such coverage consistent with standards included in the NAIC Model Health Plan for Uninsurable Individuals Act that was in effect at the time of the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (August 21, 1996) but only if the model has been revised in State regulations to meet all of the requirements of this part and title 27 of the PHS Act. *State* means any of the 50 States and the District of Columbia and includes the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. 4. Section 148.310 is amended by— A. Republishing the introductory text to the section. B. Revising paragraph (b). C. Revising paragraph (d). D. Revising paragraphs (f), (g), and (h). The republication, revisions, and additions read as follows: § 148.310 Eligibility requirements for a grant. A State must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a grant:

(b)The pool restricts premiums charged under the pool to no more than 200 percent of the premium for applicable standard risk rates for the State.

(d)The pool has in effect a mechanism reasonably designed to ensure continued funding of losses incurred by the State after the end of each fiscal year for which the State applies for Federal Funding in fiscal year

(FY)2005 through FY 2010 in connection with the operation of the pool.

(f)In the case of a qualified high risk pool in a State that charges premiums that exceed 150 percent of the premium for applicable standard risks, the State will use at least 50 percent of the amount of the grant provided to the State to reduce premiums for enrollees.

(g)In no case will the aggregate amount allotted and made available to the U.S. Territories for a fiscal year exceed $1,000,000 in total.

(h)Bonus grant funding must be used for one or more of the following benefits:

(1)Low income premium subsidies;

(2)Reduction in premium trends, actual premium or other cost-sharing requirements;

(3)An expansion or broadening of the pool of individuals eligible for coverage, such as through eliminating waiting lists, increasing enrollment caps, or providing flexibility in enrollment rules;

(4)Less stringent rules or additional waiver authority with respect to coverage of pre-existing conditions;

(5)Increased benefits; and

(6)The establishment of disease management programs. 5. Section 148.312 is amended by— A. Revising paragraph (a). B. Revising paragraph (b). C. Revising paragraph (d). The revisions read as follows: § 148.312 Amount of grant payment.

(a)An eligible State may receive a grant to fund up to 100 percent of the losses incurred in the operation of its qualified high risk pool during the period for which it is applying or a lesser amount based on the limits of the allotment under the formula.

(b)Funds will be allocated in accordance with this paragraph to each State that meets the eligibility requirements of § 148.310 and files an application in accordance with § 148.316. The amount will be divided among the States that apply and are awarded grants according to the allotment rules that generally provide that: 40 percent will be equally divided among those States; 30 percent will be divided among States and territories based on their number of uninsured residents in the State during the specified year as compared to all States that apply; and 30 percent will be divided among States and territories based on the number of people in State high risk pools during the specified year as compared to all States that apply. For purposes of this paragraph:

(1)The number of uninsured individuals is calculated for each eligible State by taking a 3-year average of the number of uninsured individuals in that State in the Current Population Survey

(CPS)of the Census Bureau during the period for which it is applying. The 3-year average will be calculated using numbers available as of March 1 of each year.

(2)The number of individuals enrolled in health care coverage through the qualified high risk pool of the State will be determined by attestation by the State in its grant application and verified for reasonability by the Secretary through acceptable industry data sources.

(d)One-third of the total appropriation will be available for the bonus grants. In no case will a State for a fiscal year receive bonus grants that exceed 10 percent of the total allotted funds for bonus grants. 6. Section 148.314 is revised to read as follows: § 148.314 Periods during which eligible States may apply for a grant.

(a)*General rule.* A State that meets the eligibility requirements in § 148.310 may apply for a grant to fund losses that were incurred during the State's FYs 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 in connection with the operation of its qualified high risk pool. Funding for FY 2007 through FY 2010 under the Extension Act requires subsequent enactment of appropriations authority. States will be unable to apply for grants unless and until such funding becomes available. Grants funding is on a retrospective basis and applies to the States previous fiscal year. If a State becomes eligible for a grant in the middle of its fiscal year, a State may apply for losses incurred in a partial fiscal year if a partial year audit is done. Only losses that are incurred after eligibility is established will qualify for a grant.

(b)*Maximum number of grants.* An eligible State may only be awarded a maximum of five grants, with one grant per fiscal year. A grant for a partial fiscal year counts as a full grant.

(c)*Deadline for submitting grant applications.* The deadlines for submitting grant applications are stated in § 148.316(d).

(d)*Distribution of grant funds.* States that meet all of the eligibility requirements in § 148.310 and submit timely requests in accordance with paragraph

(c)of this section will receive an initial distribution of grant funds using the following methodology: Grant applications for losses will be on a retrospective basis. For example, grant applications for 2006 funds are based on the State's FY 2005 incurred losses. Grant funding was appropriated for Federal FY 2006 and is authorized to be appropriated for Federal FYs 2008 through 2010.

(e)*Grant allocations.* Grant allocations for each fiscal year will be determined by taking all grant applications during the period for which States are applying and allocating the funds in accordance with § 148.312.

(1)In no case will a State receive funds greater than 100 percent of their losses.

(2)If any excess funds remain after the initial calculation, these excess funds will be proportionately redistributed to the States whose allocations have not exceeded 100 percent of their losses. 7. Section 148.316 is amended by— A. Revising the introductory text to the section. B. Amending paragraph

(a)introductory text by revising the heading. C. Revising paragraph (a)(3). D. Revising paragraph (b). E. Revising paragraph (c). F. Revising paragraph (d). G. Revising paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows: § 148.316 Grant application instructions. Funding for FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010 under the Extension Act requires the subsequent enactment of appropriations authority. Funding was appropriated for Federal FY 2006. States will be unable to apply for FY 2008 through FY 2010 grants unless and until such funding becomes available.

(a)*Application for operational losses.* * * *

(3)*Bonus grants for supplemental consumer benefits.* Provide detailed information about the following supplemental consumer benefits for which the entity is applying:

(i)A narrative description of one or more of the following of the supplemental consumer benefits to be provided to enrollees and/or potential enrollees in the high risk pool:

(A)Low income premium subsidies;

(B)Reduction in premium trends, actual premium or other cost-sharing requirements;

(C)An expansion or broadening of the pool of individuals eligible for coverage, such as through eliminating waiting lists, increasing enrollment caps, or providing flexibility in enrollment;

(D)Less stringent rules, or additional waiver authority with respect to coverage of pre-existing conditions;

(E)Increased benefits; and

(F)The establishment of disease management programs.

(ii)A description of the population or subset population that will be eligible for the supplemental consumer benefits.

(iii)A projected budget for the use of bonus grant funds using the SF 424 A.

(b)Standard form application kit—(1) Forms.

(i)The following standard forms must be completed with an original signature and enclosed as part of the application package: SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance. SF-424A Budget Information. SF-424B Assurances Non-Construction Programs. SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Biographical Sketch.

(ii)These forms can be accessed from the following Web site: *http://www.grants.gov.*

(2)*Other narrative.* All other narrative in the application must be submitted on 8 1/2 x 11 inches white paper.

(c)*Application submission.* Submission of application package is through *http://www.grants.gov.* Submissions by facsimile

(fax)transmissions will not be accepted.

(d)*Application deadlines.*

(1)The deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in a State fiscal year is June 30 of the next Federal fiscal year that begins after the end of the State fiscal year. Funding for FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010 under the Extension Act requires the subsequent enactment of appropriations authority. Funding was appropriated for Federal FY 2006. States will be unable to apply for FY 2008 through FY 2010 grants unless and until such funding becomes available.

(2)*Deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in their fiscal year 2005.* States had to submit an application to CMS no later than June 30, 2006.

(3)*Deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in their fiscal year 2006.* States must submit an application to CMS by no later than June 30, 2007.

(4)*Deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in their fiscal year 2007.* States must submit an application to CMS by no later than June 30, 2008.

(5)*Deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in their fiscal year 2008.* States must submit an application to CMS by no later than June 30, 2009.

(6)*Deadline for States to submit an application for losses incurred in their fiscal year 2009.* States must submit an application to CMS by no later than June 30, 2010.

(e)*Where to submit an application.* Applications must be submitted to *http://www.grants.gov.* Submissions by facsimile

(fax)transmissions will not be accepted. 8. Section 148.318 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: § 148.318 Grant application review.

(d)* * *

(2)*Funding mechanism.* The State has outlined funding sources, such as assessments and State general revenues, which can cover the projected costs and are reasonably designed to ensure continued funding of losses a State incurs in connection with the operation of the qualified high risk pool after each fiscal year for which it is applying for grant funds. 9. Section 148.320 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows: § 148.320 Grant awards.

(a)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)The grantee will be required to submit quarterly progress and financial reports under part 92 of this title and in accordance with section 2745(f) of the Public Health Service Act, requiring the Secretary to make an annual report to Congress that includes information on the use of these grant funds by States. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program) Dated: January 17, 2008. Kerry Weems, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: January 17, 2008. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9066 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 230 [Docket No. 080414564-8565-01] RIN 0648-AW71 Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota it has assigned to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

(AEWC)for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 59 th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2008, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the AEWC. DATES: Effective April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty,

(301)713-9090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916 *et seq.* ). Regulations that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 230.6, require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the IWC. At the 59 th Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set quotas for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead quota was based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East. This action by the IWC thus authorized aboriginal subsistence whaling by the AEWC for bowhead whales. This aboriginal subsistence harvest is conducted in accordance with a cooperative agreement between NOAA and the AEWC. The IWC set a 5-year block quota of 280 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2008 through 2012, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any year, including 15 unused strikes from the 2003 through 2007 quota, may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2007 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota for 2008 is 82 (67 + 15). This arrangement ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2008 will not exceed the quotas set by the IWC. Under an arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes. Through its cooperative agreement with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will allocate these strikes among the 11 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented in past requests for bowhead quotas from the IWC, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes. Other Limitations The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf. NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here. Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling. They must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization. The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment. They may not receive money for participating in the hunt. No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native handicrafts. Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner. Dated: April 21, 2008. James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-9111 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 010319075-1217-02] RIN 0648-XF92 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery; Quota Harvested for Part-time Category AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; tilefish Part-time permit category closure. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the percentage of the tilefish annual total allowable landings

(TAL)available to the tilefish Part-time permit category for the 2008 fishing year has been harvested. Therefore, commercial vessels fishing under the Part-time tilefish category may not harvest tilefish from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit for the remainder of the 2008 fishing year (through October 31, 2008) as of April 25, 2008. Regulations governing the tilefish fishery require publication of this notification to advise the public of this closure. DATES: Effective 0001 hrs local time, April 25, 2008, through 2400 hrs local time, October 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy A. Cardiasmenos, Fishery Policy Analyst, at

(978)281-9204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the tilefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a TAL for federally permitted tilefish vessels harvesting tilefish from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit. The Golden Tilefish Management Unit is defined as an area of the Atlantic Ocean from the latitude of the VA and NC border (36°33.36′ N. lat.), extending eastward from the shore to the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone, and northward to the U.S.-Canada border. After 5 percent of the TAL is deducted to reflect landings by vessels issued an open-access Incidental permit category, and after up to 3 percent of the TAL is set aside for research purposes, should research TAL be set aside, the remaining TAL is distributed among three tilefish limited access permit categories: Full-time tier 1 category (66 percent), Full-time tier 2 category (15 percent), and the Part-time category (19 percent). The TAL for tilefish for the 2008 fishing year was set at 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg) and then adjusted downward by 5 percent to 1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg) to account for incidental catch. There was no research set-aside for the 2008 fishing year. Thus, the Part-time permit category quota for the 2008 fishing year, which is equal to 19 percent of the TAL, was specified at 360,098 lb (163,338 kg). Notification of the 2008 Part-time permit category quota for the 2008 fishing year was sent in a Permit Holder Letter to all tilefish limited access permit holders on October 18, 2007. The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial tilefish quota for each fishing year using dealer reports, vessel catch reports, and other available information to determine when the quota for each limited access permit category is projected to have been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the **Federal Register** notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the tilefish TAL for the specific limited access category has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for harvesting tilefish by that category for the remainder of the fishing year, from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2008 tilefish TAL for the Part-time category has been harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hr local time, April 25, 2008, further landings of tilefish harvested from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit by tilefish vessels holding Part-time category Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through October 31, 2008. The 2009 fishing year for commercial tilefish harvest will open on November 1, 2008. Federally permitted dealers are also advised that, effective April 25, 2008, they may not purchase tilefish from Part-time category federally permitted tilefish vessels who land tilefish harvested from within the Golden Tilefish Management Unit for the remainder of the 2008 fishing year (through October 31, 2008). Classification The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. If implementation of this closure were delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this category would be exceeded, given the rate of harvest of tilefish for vessels in this category. This would conflict with the agency's legal obligation under section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and to rebuild this fishery as soon as possible. Overage of the Part-time category quota that occurs in a given fishing year is subtracted from the quota for this category in the following fishing year. Thus, allowing an overage would have a negative economic impact on owners of vessels permitted in the Part-time category, who did not contribute to the overage this year, and who would fish during the next fishing year. The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above. This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 22, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1184 Filed 4-22-08; 1:51 pm]

Connectionstraces to 25

Traces to 25 documents

U.S. Code